Without the electoral college we become a nation ruled by the cities. I prefer to maintain the republic so all states have a voice and not go full democracy.
"States like New York and North Dakota are valued the exact same way under the current system. They're valued not at all, because they're reliably either Republican or Democrat [...] The only way I know how to put urban voters at parity with rural voters and rural voters at parity with urban voters is to make every voter in this country politically relevant in presidential elections."
The way to do that? A national popular vote that would require candidates to campaign in all 50 states. The effect would be that every voter would know their vote matters.
"I don't care if you're in the heart of Manhattan or in the outskirts of Helena. When you go vote for the American president, you know what's going to count toward the final result in a national popular vote election. And you're not going to be treated like a second-class citizen."
Interesting that in your “nation ruled by cities” ranchers in Wyoming would still have about 50x influence in determining the make up of the US Senate when compared to folks in NYC, SF or LA.
That’s a very strange misreading of how elections work (and misstates US demographics, most of us live in suburbs).
But even taken on its own terms, isn’t that better than “a nation ruled by a rotating handful of states with nothing in common other than a somewhat steady 50-50 split in the electorate”? The current system is indefensible madness.
The duopoly has more to do with the bias of first past the post voting than the population demographics. The electoral college exists for the express purpose of preventing population centers from running the country with no regard to the rural population.
