Sonofoski said:
dajo9,
So you think that California, New York, Illinois, and New Jersey should decide who is elected.
I've got news for you and other people who think the electoral college is a good thing.
This is practically already the case!
A candidate can win the Presidency by winning just the 11 largest states and to hell with the other 39.
A candidate can also win the Presidency by winning just 27% of the popular vote by winning those large states by a single vote each and getting 0% of the vote in the other 39 states.
Or, you can turn it around and assume that a candidate wins all of the states EXCEPT the 10 largest. That's enough electoral votes to win and would garner just 23% of the popular vote.
Any candidate that wins California, New York, and Texas is going to be very hard to beat! Do you think that California, New York, and Texas should decide who is elected?
I guarantee you once Texas starts voting reliably Democrat suddenly those red states won't like the electoral college so much.
Besides, why shouldn't the millions of Republicans in California and Democrats in Texas have a say in who the President is?
Time to either get rid of it or award electoral votes proportionally according to the percentage of the popular vote, which is functionally the same.
We don't vote that way for any other public office.