Originally Posted by WSU JK
The problem with the way the electoral college is set up is that it gives too much weight to states like North Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming. With a guaranteed minimum of 3 electoral votes for every state, regardless of population, the vote of a person in Wyoming ends up being worth about the same as 4 votes in New York. Put another way, places like Wyoming and the Dakotas have one electoral vote for every 140,000 people while Texas, California, Florida, New York... get one vote for every 500,000 people. That seems much less fair to me than popular vote.
Yes, a candidate will spend much more time in places like California and New York, but it seems with a greater percentage of our voters in these place, that should be the logical thing to do anyway. And as it currently stands, yes, states like California and New York are generally going to throw all their electoral votes to the Dems but if they were going by popular vote, Republicans would do pretty well in some of the populous regions of these states (Orange County, Riverside County, San Diego County in CA and New York, Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, and possibly Erie County in New York).
Even in Michigan, once you get outside of Metro Detroit, the number of Republican votes generally outnumbers the number of Democratic votes, especially at the presidential level. I would think that those voters would love for their voices to be heard instead of just being lost in the electoral college system.