I think the Electoral College has outlived its usefulness (if it ever had any). The big-state advantage is there, no matter which system you use. That is, Wyoming doesn't get many visits, 'cause there ain't enough voters there. If there were no EC, the vote of someone is a small state would count EXACTLY the same as in a big one. And, though small states might not get many visits (and the concomitent boost to the local economy), they might get more than when a given state is declared "red" or "blue," and therefore not a "battleground state."

Think of it. Iowa, Ohio, Florida, all got so many visits that some people probably went to five rallies or so, when no one in Maryland or Arizona or one of those "safe" states got any chance. And their economies didn't get squat, either.

So I think pure popularity would be better. An intelligent politician (yeah, I know all about oxymorons) would see that at least a few visits and dollars spent in those smaller states would pay bigger dividends than a heavy presence in the big states.

Who knows? It might mean that the president would be beholden to real voters instead of big money. (Yeah, I know all about vain hopes, too).


Bob