> Without the electoral college, a candidate would only have to campaign in and win three or four large states, and the rest of the nations and its concerns can be ignored.

But this system already exists via swing states. Voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida determine the election currently, just look at how much is spent on advertising in those states compared to non-swing states. Look at how often candidates visit Ohio vs Kentucky.

The idea that the electoral college equally franchises all Americans is purely a myth.

A popular vote "disenfranchises" any voting bloc that stands in opposition to a majority. Do you believe this strategy of ameliorating tyranny-of-the-majority scenarios by weighting votes generalizes to demographics other than place of residence? Can we give extra votes to all disadvantaged populations, or is there something unique about small-state folks?

> The alternative is only counting the popular vote, which only serves to disenfranchise the majority of states.

The majority of red states are also the majority of the population, so this doesn't check out. (Trump states ~180mm to Hillary's ~140mm.)

This is false.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results

>Trump 46.4% votes 62,984,825

>Clinton 48.5% votes 65,853,5165

More specifically, a state that 'cheats' can only impact their share of electoral votes, rather than bleed into the popular count of all states' electoral votes.