Its impossible to happen under the system as it is established, but you just needed to push for a constitutional amendment and / or state compact like the one to overturn the electoral college to change the voting system to support either proportional (doesn't work when you elect a single seat like the president) or STV (ie runoff voting).
The chance of that happening in the next four years? Really low. About as unlikely as it has been since the Internet established itself as a place to talk about how to fix the voting system. But unlikely doesn't mean you don't try, and don't talk about it where you can.
Changing from electoral college to pop vote also means the nature of campaigning will change.
California, for example, has a huge population of Republicans and now their vote would matter. I don't think Trump did any non military focused rallies there.
I am in Illinois. I didn't vote in 2008 or 2012 because I knew my vote would have no impact. Give me a popular vote and you might have Romney... Be careful what you wish for.
> California, for example, has a huge population of Republicans and now their vote would matter.
And at the same time votes from Democrats in California would also matter more. I'd assume a number of people who'd vote Democrat in CA don't vote because they know the Democrats won't lose anyway.
It would drastically reduce the voting power of several red states. Only recently (since 2000) has the EC being different than the popular vote been a problem. Both times it's gone in the republicans favour.
The system isn't fair, voters in low pop states have more power than california.
The system emphasizes swing states above others, as the country is so split right now.
The system is worse for third party candidates (especially if a STV or ranked system was used. This would also please the Bernie or bust folk).
The system is outdated, it was meant to have a group of well informed electors make the decision about who is president. This doesn't makes sense anymore as the electors are pretty much bound to the will of the states popular vote, and people have access to more information. Plus the whole safeguard against someone unqualified idea has been tossed out the window now anyway.
It's hard to imagine a democratic system where swing voters don't hold disproportionate power. Rusted-on supporters will support you whatever may come, and the opponents' rusted-on supporters will never support you, so as a candidate you spend more time, effort, and money appealing to the noncommittal folks in the middle...
Even excellent voting systems like Condorcet don't change this particular equation; a hardcore supporter of you just simply doesn't need as much of your attention in an electioneering frame of mind.
This all being said, that doesn't mean the current systems in the US aren't horribly misrepresentative. Gerrymandering is a particular problem there.
Minor point: Swing voters and swing states are two different beasts. In the later case you can concentrate effort in one area to gain a quantum all-or-nothing jump: generally, all the EC votes in the state. To target swing voters you need to address a much larger geographic area, and only get the incremental advantage of one vote per person.
It doesn't matter which way the partisan advantage would run (and it most likely wouldn't be to the permanent advantage of one side anyway), if it increased turnout then that would be an unalloyed Good Thing.
Of those that voted. I think fixxer is saying that there are alot of people that don't vote (about half of the voting population) because they are an X in a Y state so they don't think their vote will change that. But if the electoral college went poof, a lot more of the missing 50% would vote and that could change the expected value of a popular vote.
This isn't so much directed at you, but this seems a great place to note that there are races on the ballot other than president, usually your local elections will have a bigger impact on your day-to-day life than the national ones, and your vote carries orders of magnitude more weight. Pay attention down-ballot!
Are you actually saying the difference - in number of votes - for President for your state was smaller than the difference - in number of votes - for every local judge, school board member, etc?
I mean, not impossible, but surprising. Where are you located?
That's not a useful fact, because both candidates would have campaigned differently if the president was chosen by popular vote rather than the electoral college. It's very unlikely that the popular vote would have been the same.
The electoral college doesn't need to change. The two bigger problems to me are:
* Winner-takes-all means that in any state that is %60/%40, the 40%'s votes don't affect the election at all.
* Congressmen are representing too many people.
If more states worked like Nebraska and Maine, then people in rural counties in California could decide a few seats on the electoral college. And there's an amendment outstanding to change the number of representatives:
The chance of that happening in the next four years? Really low. About as unlikely as it has been since the Internet established itself as a place to talk about how to fix the voting system. But unlikely doesn't mean you don't try, and don't talk about it where you can.