Post of mine from a little while ago, lightly edited:
Here's why the EC should remain
A) If there were no Electoral College, all campaigning would be blanket ads, and then it would be a battle of who had more money. With the Electoral College, candidates pick battlegrounds and actually meet voters, meaning they can win by being a better candidate/person, and don't just have to be the richest. Candidates also have to spend less time fundraising.
B) Sure, the Electoral College might elect a loser every once in a while but it shows the importance of having a diverse electorate and appealing to people in many states. One easy fix I have for this is so, when nobody gets 270 EVs, the winner of the popular vote wins instead. That would reduce the already low probability of an EC win PV loss
C) Sure, ties are chaotic, and that's why my above plan should exist.
D) Sure, many states get ignored, but it might be better if a candidate spends more time in Florida than Kansas. Also, how would candidates know where to campaign with no Electoral College?
I don't see how PV would negate the need to meet voters. Actually, I don't get how campaigning would be effected in that way, but if it means less campaigning. Good. These things get more negative every year, and turn away voters from actually voting. If campaigns were actually about educating voters, and not trashing the other candidate until you win, then I would consider that a bad thing.
They'd campaign in highly populated areas that tend to vote for people with similar views. Examples: a pro-coal candidate might want to invest time and money in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and other states with a sizable coal industry; an anti-gun candidate might want to campaign in big cities like Chicago which is dealing with high amounts of gun violence.
