If it coupled with neutral redistricting reform, then I think it has value. People in states dominated by the other party but in large homogeneous regions (upstate NY, eastern WA, black areas of the Atlanta metro, Rio Grande valley of TX) would feel like their vote mattered more. In gerrymandered states it just becomes another point of abuse.
Even then, Republicans would gain an edge due to their populations being less concentrated.
That may be true in today's political environment. But we should be focused on the long-term best policies for fair districts. Th relative concentrations of the parties shift as the parties realign with different voting blocs. Today the urban-rural divide is dominant, but it wasn't always so, and won't be always so. Our biggest impediment to neutral reform are party hacks who look at races primarily through the lens of the next election.
Exactly!
My position is that I support direct popular vote for President. The only advantage I see to the electoral college in modern times is that in a close election, you would only have to recount one state.
Imagine if in 2000, we had to do a nation wide recount for President. We only had to do it for Florida.
Atlas, people in general, have a tendency to predict future elections based on the most previous election. I do agree with you that the urban-rural divide will not always exist. I remember in 2006 when everyone assumed 2008, 2012, and 2016 would mirror 2004. It was similar, but it did not exactly mirror it. No one in 2000 expected Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia to be more likely to vote Democratic then Missouri, Arkansas and Tennessee in 2016, for example.
Poll
