Why do you want to take away the voice of those who don't live in big cities and over-populated areas where illegals have taken over? What about the farmers? Don't they mean anything in America?
We have enough corruption in our nation without throwing away our Constitutional rights along with our freedom, liberty and sovereignty.
People in less populated areas might as well not bother voting at all since their voice would never be heard. Their democracy in our republic would end. Unless you lived in the city, your vote wouldn't count.
It's not just the big states vs small states, it's country vs the mass populations of cities.
Let me put it in simpler terms so you can better understand.
If the government has alotted a million dollars to improve the roads in areas of a state but want the people of the state to vote on who needs it the most by voting, which system would be most fair to the whole state?
The popular vote would mean all major cities would get their roads repaired while those across the rest of the state would have to travel on roads with great potholes because their voice would never be heard.
With an electoral vote, less populated areas but wider expanses would have a chance at getting their roads repaired.
Maybe even more basic survivor info will make a little more sense to someone who doesn't understand that there are many people who support the cities by raising/growing food for the whole state. They don't just feed the country people. Otherwise you would starve or get your food from China.
But if the farmers can't have a vote, maybe they should come up with their own system and ignore those in the cities - just let the city people try to figure out where to get their food from because it's not their problem. This is the same as the heavier populated areas not caring about those who live in wide expanses of land who feed you.
The electoral vote was created by our forefathers because they actually thought about how things would affect everyone throughout the whole state and our whole nation as it existed, not just those in concentrated areas where the popular vote would always outweigh the country vote whether they agreed or disagreed upon issues.
I agree with musicman that our electoral vote needs to be updated for today's populas since there have been many shifts in population.
I also think votes by the county makes sense. It would be like holding a lot of small elections across our land and then each county result would turn in their votes - not as a state, but all counties would count. Larger cites might have their county split into more than one county vote for fairness so the wide expanses of farmland wouldn't have a voice over the cities, but to create a balance throughout the state.
No more state votes consolidated. This would give people a better "popular" vote while allowing both city and country people to truly have a voice. This would still be considered an electoral vote since counties would represent the votes of their county to be counted with all other counties without consolidating the counties into a state vote.
Just think, politicians would have to talk to all people to find out what everyone desires to get their vote. This would be fair representation throughout our nation.
The next problem would be to prevent states from creating more counties to have a better say - as in a large state like Texas would always have more votes than a small state like Delaware. Can you imagine the big states splitting up their states into little tiny counties for more votes in their state and little states having counties that consist of a few houses?
And you know, by the time you get done splitting it all up so that their is a fairness in the size of the counties and number of counties in a state, you end up with an electoral vote for today.
I also think this same electoral vote should be used during the primaries and not limit the primaries to a two party system. There are many very qualified candidates who never have their voice heard with today's way of selecting candidates.
What if a candidate running for President was not allowed to use party affiliation in their campaign? What if they could only run by using their name, past experience and votes on issues and promises for the future or how they would correct a problem? What if it was narrowed down to the top 10 candidates in the primary for President? The debates would be more interesting and we would have a better selection to choose from on election day.