Your points are many of the same ones the friend I referenced in the article made. And they're entirely valid. I can't argue that the focus of election candidates would focus only on major population centers without the Electoral College.
(Although she never argued about the necessity of the power of the court system or lawmaking representatives. Of course those things should be left alone; they'd be far too complex and tedious for every American to be involved with. I'm talking purely about the Presidency here.)
And yet... I'm having trouble getting past the fact that the College does not always reflect the will of the people. In 2016, the winner (Trump) did not reflect the votes of the entire populace, which put Clinton in the lead by almost 3 million votes. Three million is an astounding amount of voters whose voices and votes went completely unheard. Regardless of where the votes came from, how is awarding the presidency to a candidate with a three million vote deficit fair and reasonable?
Is the sticking point the idea that the less populous states would see far less (if any) election rallies and overall focus without the EC? Which boils the problem down to a a pre-election implication, am I correct?
It still feels to me that the EC gives less populous states more weight and power than they are legally entitled to--if the United States really is the Democracy it claims to be. And yet I can't deny your point that without the EC, the smaller population centers would be completely ignored by candidates.
There has to be a something in the middle where everyone is treated equally throughout the entire process. A system where no one is ignored, and everyone feels that their votes matter, while also carrying out the will of the popular vote, instead of awarding the presidency to a candidate who loses the popular vote.
I don't know what that system is, and I'm glad it's not up to me to find it; I'd probably botch the crap out of it.
Maybe they could make in-person campaigning illegal? 😉 Leaving only TV and Internet campaigning, where again, candidates would spend their advertising dollars in the metro areas and nowhere else.
I don't want anyone to be ignored or their voices to be undervalued. I also don't want any one group of people to be given more power than any other group of people.
Where do we find a system that balances the two?
Btw - Thanks for the feedback, I really do appreciate and enjoy it. Keep it coming.