That's not an argument against the Electoral College per se, but rather an argument against letting states allocate all of their Electoral College votes to the winner of the popular vote. This particular problem could be solved by forcing all states to apportion their Electoral College votes based on the distribution of the popular vote.

> This particular problem could be solved by forcing all states to apportion their Electoral College votes based on the distribution of the popular vote.

That is not a realistic proposal. Political gridlock will never allow a change like this. Doing it state by state is even worse because it just creates a system where dems try to do it to only red states and the GOP tries to do it to only blue states. It would just further skew the outcomes away from a democratic result.

This is exactly what the article is about, and 16 states with 194 votes have already done it. It will eventually pass 270 because most states (all non-swing states) have a lot to gain from it.

I'm pretty sure the poster I responded to was talking about doing this on a per state basis. Not the national popular vote.

That’s exactly what the NPVIC is trying for... they’re not abolishing the electoral college, just making an agreement that 270+ of them will vote for whomever wins the entire nation’s popular vote.

IIRC this behavior is per-state and some (Maine or NH maybe?) do just that.

Maine and Nebraska apportion their electoral votes on a per-Congressional district basis. But because Congressional districts can be heavily gerrymandered this is not a substitute for a truly proportional allocation scheme.

Exactly. I live in NYC. I still vote, but really it doesn't matter whom I vote for since there's an approximately 100% chance of New York's electoral votes going to the Democratic candidate. On the other hand, Kansas hasn't voted for a Democrat since Lyndon B. Johnson; I'm sure people there don't feel particularly enfranchised either.

But this proves the point.

The issue you are having at the state level is a dominant majority makes the views of the minority irrelevant.

And to be clear, the EC does not disenfranchise all the voters in states like CA, just the minority voters.

This is actually precisely what the Senate and the Electoral College is designed to mitigate.

it invalidates all voters. Overvotes are a thing. You can have 90% of CA vote against a candidate and it won't mean anything more than 51% voting against.

So roughly half of the votes in all non competitive states do not count.