Without the electoral college, democratic candidates would be forced to campaign in Texas, where half the population votes democratic, while the Republican candidate would be obligated to campaign in California, where there are millions of Republican voters. Both would need to visit small states, because every vote would count. Let’s ditch the Electoral College.

the founders feared someone like Julius Caesar who endangered the republic despite unanimous popularity. In such a situation they wanted the electoral college to have the power to deny such a person a win by vote. I believe they called it “tyranny of the majority?” Personally, I think it was adequate for the early 1800’s but after that if such a scenario would happen such a decision by the electoral college would likely result in Civil War. Personally, I think the founders’ fears of which was worse, tyranny of the majority or Tyranny of the minority, actually is demonstrated pretty well when you see how the House of Representatives vs the Senate was set up in how they represented voters.

That’s how it originally was. But, sometime early in the 1800s Tennessee (as I recall it being that particular state) went to a winner take all for its electorates to shore up its power as a state within the union. James Madison, who is considered a major architect of our Constitution protested it saying that it wasn’t the original intent. But, the Supreme Court ruled in Tennessee’s favor forcing most all the other states to do the same thing in order to insure they had as equal a voice to Tennessee’s in the Federal Government. The biggest obstacle to reforming the Electoral College isn’t so much the politicians in Washington as it is each individual state wanting to keep a sense of power in a Federal Republic. That is a government that is made up of individual autonomous or at least semi-autonomous governments working together. so, proportioning the Electoral votes would be going back to the original intent. After further research, I found that Alexander Hamilton went so far as to try to put in a Constitutional Amendment that would ensure the Electoral College would be determined by district and not by state.

I am sorry… they do that

2 separate metro areas that extended into 3 states.’ that is something unique to the New England area, with Kansas City being an exemption. This is not something you find in Los Angeles, CA, Chicago, IL, Houston, TX, Phoenix, AZ, San Antonio, TX, San Diego, CA, Dallas, TX, San Jose, CA and that’s just what I feel like posting here. The vast majority of the cities in the top 50 have greater metro areas that are in one and if you notice California, Texas, Florida are in here a lot, you are missing many states. In fact, you can get to get to 51% of the population by only adding up 9 states. Would you call 9/50 a covers a wider range geographically? And by looking for the URL for you I found that by 2040 it will be 8 states, so the problem will only get worse.

metro area or commuter belt, is a region consisting of a densely populated urban core and its less-populated surrounding territories, sharing industry, infrastructure, and housing. This seems way too broad but it agrees with you. This does include suburbs so I am assuming you have never been to the suburbs of Chicago. And because I currently live in one of the metro areas you mentioned I would have to disagree with how homogenous it is, but I have been wrong before, it just seems odd you want in increase representation by allowing candidates to go to fewer places.

Besides getting rid of the electoral college, the U.S. also needs to pass a law banning corporate campaign “donations” (i.e. legalized bribes) so that politicians stop serving corporate interests and CEOs and start serving the people who voted for them. That would end the current state of plutocratic, oligarchic corporatocracy, and turn the U.S. into a democracy.