Very well could be missing something, but how would this be functionally different than a straight up popular vote, if the number of electoral votes are based on population? The difference should be negligible at best.
Originally Posted by: Porforis
The arguments are that popular vote would result in a candidate getting elected by only a few states that have the highest population density leaving the remaining state without any power in politics. Heck going after a handful of cities could win an election by popular vote. Electoral college is supposed to counter that and return some of that power to smaller states and less populated areas.
Problem is with All or None disbursement of electorals, parties give up states because they know they can't get any of the electorals from the state. Why would a republican spend money and campaign in CA today? Or a Democrat in Texas? It is pretty much known there are a handful of 50 or 6 states that will actually determine who wins and that is now where all the attention is paid. when I hear people from IL saying it doesn't matter who I vote for because the states is going to go to Hillary anyway there is a problem.
I believe by requiring all states to either allocate by district or proportionally it would force candidates to campaign in all states. And voters would feel their vote matters more because swinging a state even one or two electorals would have an impact on the final results.
I see it as a hybrid of straight popular and what we have today.
The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!