That would help negate voter suppression. However let's take a small state like Rhode Island. What if they had 50% turnout. Should they get 50 votes compared to California who let's say has 28% turnout and they only get 28 votes? That kills any hope of the popular vote having a larger impact which is ultimately what I would like to see.
Maybe the answer is to keep the EC but to change the formula. Maybe it could be based on the population plus a turnout % of some kind?
I get the original logic behind the EC. I do have a problem with 1 or 2 states deciding the presidency for the entire country which is what will happen should be go totally by the popular vote. Texas is one of those states and we are at the moment red. So would it be fair because we have far more conservative votes in this state to speak for some of the smaller north eastern states? Would you want Texas conservative values to factor in that much? I don't. Not as long as it is red. I think ultimately if it is based just on popular vote you would see massive changes in the number of votes cast in some smaller states both red and blue. Why vote if CA, NY, and TX outweigh the rest of the country by themselves or close to it. I think of some very blue states that could potentially drop in huge numbers because why vote? CA and NY have your back. We want every single blue vote to matter and understand how important to the future of our country they are.
I think we must first investigate the fraud, the hacking and how to NEVER let that happen again. Next we have to change the EC. It just doesn't work the way it is.
= new reply since forum marked as read