Someone community-tagged this "no", lol. They are correct. One of the only things about the electoral college that I like is that the existence of swing states kinda forces presidential candidates into catering more to everyone along the political spectrum. At this moment in time, if America changed to popular vote, I'm not sure that democrat presidential nominees would even pretend to care about rural voters (hell, they wouldn't have to campaign at all, with the current disparity in the popular vote). I don't think that's a good thing. Still, I agree that this discussion is hella healthy. I'll seize any and all opportunities to point out how increasingly un-representative the GOP is.
Disagree. A popular vote based election means that there's every reason for a Democrat to campaign in Tulsa and a Republican in Orange County, because each vote suddenly matters, and if course there are pockets of every political stripe in every state. My guess is that the EC artificially suppresses turnout because most people in the country reasonably believe that their vote doesn't matter. I think in the long run abolishing three EC would actually be good for the GOP, even though it really would fuck them for a couple election cycles, since they could be free to not pander to the South any longer.
Agreed, except for the "good for the GOP" thing. What will happen is that, when every vote counts, there will be greater power to each vote and voters won't be happy just voting for one person. They will want Ranked Choice voting, which will ultimately help bring nuance and collaboration back, because people won't be party die-hards any more. They will be able to form coalitions with people with good ideas, no matter where the sit on the political spectrum. Which will, in the end, be bad for both the DNC and the GOP, because both are the lunatic fringe, and don't reflect the majority of ANYONE's opinion.