Smallest possible area?

[Nym90]

But the Electoral College does not require widespread support. It is possible to win with a very small margin in enough states to give you 270 electoral votes, and very little support in the entire rest of the country. A candidate can win the Electoral College with a regional campaign that focuses on only half the country, but it is nearly impossible to win the popular vote without having at least some appeal all across the nation.

[Nym90]

You can't win the popular vote with just one area either. And how is it demonstrating widespread support to just narrowly win those 11, and get blown out in the other 40? As opposed to the candidate who lost the electoral but won the popular, by demonstrating FAR more appeal in the other 40 states, and only a tiny bit less in those 11 states?

[Nym90]

Right, but you need even more support across the whole country, ie states in different areas, to win the popular vote.

The argument that the Electoral College requires a greater geographic diversity in order to win the election is way too simplistic, since it is based on the concept that all that matters is who wins each state, not the margin. Looking at an EC map, I can see why people would think the electoral vote promotes greater support across the country, but actually the popular vote requires a greater spread of geographic diversity in a candidate's support, since it becomes almost impossible to win the popular vote if you ignore certain areas of the country. On the other hand, one can win the electoral vote by focusing on only half the country, and thus winning narrow victories in those states (even if they are all across the country, you are still only focusing on those few states) while ignoring the remainder of the nation.