What you are essentially saying is that the votes of people in rural areas should count more than the votes of people in urban areas. As it is now (as Grovester pointed out), most of the campaign money in the US is already spent in a few swing states so its not like candidates even need to appeal pander to the entire country. I don't like the present reality of living in a red or blue state and having your vote not count if you vote for the other party. That's not democratic. Nor is it mob rule to elect a president by the popular vote. We are representative democracy for certain, but that applies to voting for representatives that then vote on a host of mundane issues that may or may not impact us - but electing the president should be done by direct democracy.Anthony_Hugo98 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 12:13 pmWithout the electoral college, much of the center of the United States would be disregarded, as all candidates would have to do is pander to the large metropolitan areas on the coast, as they could easily win with just the areas of New York, L.A., S.F., And Miami. As many people living in a confined metro area are going to generally have similar viewpoints, elected officials would be voted for based on how they’d address those areas needs, and not nearly as much in regard to the nations needs. While I understand that woefully under explains the complexity of that issue, that’s what it is in effect. That, and pure democracy can easily lead to the rights of the minority being easily taken.
I'll also add that the rural states are already disproportionately represented by the Senate where Wyoming with < 1 million people gets the same representation as California with > 35 million.