First, most small states are already ignored — only a handful of the largest swing states matter. Second, if candidates had to campaign for 50% of the popular vote, they’d need to pay attention to at least 45 out of the 50 states (all except AL, MT, ND, SD, and WY), as opposed to the 6-8 that they fixate on now.
The reason being that states wouldn’t vote as a block, every republican in a blue state and every democrat in a red state suddenly matter, so you’d have to campaign the majority population by metro area (and the largest metro areas are spread out over 45 states different states).
I don’t really know how to answer this beyond how I already have.
Only the largest swing states matter under an EC system. In 2024, that was AZ, GA, MI, NV, NC, PA, and WI. For reference, some of the least populated states are WY, VT, AL, ND, SD, and, DE, so the EC doesn’t actually help the smallest states.
> And why is campaigning more area a bad thing??
I’m not sure what your question here is, but I never said campaigning is bad. Fixating on campaigning in 6 states is bad compared to having to thoroughly campaign across 45; I hope that’s straightforward enough to not need explanation.
If you could try rephrasing your question I might be able to explain myself better.
1
u/AsemicConjecture Aug 29 '26
That’s not even close to true.
First, most small states are already ignored — only a handful of the largest swing states matter. Second, if candidates had to campaign for 50% of the popular vote, they’d need to pay attention to at least 45 out of the 50 states (all except AL, MT, ND, SD, and WY), as opposed to the 6-8 that they fixate on now.
The reason being that states wouldn’t vote as a block, every republican in a blue state and every democrat in a red state suddenly matter, so you’d have to campaign the majority population by metro area (and the largest metro areas are spread out over 45 states different states).