Popular-vote election has drawbacks
Abolishing the electoral system may superficially appear an appropriate remedy for a seemingly unfair voting process, but I’m doubtful a popular vote would be better.
Currently, presidential campaigns concentrate on states with the most electoral votes, and it makes sense. Less time and money is spent to reach the most people. The smallest states usually don’t get a campaign stop, but eliminating the states’ vote won’t fix selective campaigning.
If we adopted a popular vote, what would happen? Candidates would focus on large cities rather than whole states. Instead of Gore campaigning throughout California, he would probably hit only San Francisco and Los Angeles (27 million people combined) and then move on. If he went north, he might not even hit Portland (2 million people) in favor of Seattle (3.5 million people).
In a popular-vote election, candidates might avoid the Northwest entirely; the East Coast is more populous. New York City, Washington, D.C., Chicago and Philadelphia offer about 42 million people, and visits are cheaper than flying west. The Electoral College makes California a “must have,” with Washington and Oregon considered pivotal.
One thing worth supporting about the popular vote is that minority votes matter more than with the Electoral College. Lefties in Texas and the Midwest won’t be heard because of the majority. The same with California and New England conservatives. Voting by district within states might be a fairer (but not the best) way of handling this discrepancy without plummeting toward a big-city bias.

Jon House

anthropology