re: .

I favor the EC - and have always done so - because it requires candidates to pay attention to more parts of the country. I realize the results are uneven because even a massively important state such as California (55 electoral votes!) can end up being ignored because it's not a competitive state, but the alternative is a campaign focused only on metro areas. Good luck trying to find a candidate in a metro that doesn't have an NFL, MLB, or NBA team.

If we did get to a pure popular vote, I would actually look for voter fraud to decrease somewhat as it would be that much harder to achieve something important. Adding a few votes in Philly can swing PA, but it is unlikely to swing a national vote. Finally - and this is what many upset with any particular election result miss - you can't just say Hillary, or whoever, would have won if there was no EC. The campaigns would have been conducted so differently, you can't say how it would have turned out. It's like saying you don't like the 3-point shot, so you can safely say that Golden State would not have won the NBA title the year before last. Of course not! Golden State would have played differently if the shot was worth only 2.