The only point of the map below is that in order
for a candidate to win the popular vote and lose the
electoral vote it would be a very close election.
This map is a victory for the Democrats in 2016 or 2020
but would be a victory for Republicans thereafter.
The whole point of this thread is that the Republican
candidates who win the popular vote have *always*
won the electoral college. (I am pretty certain this is true,
correct me if it isn't)
I think this has a lot
to do with why many of them have been reluctant to
abolish it.
I am not convinced that the electoral college should be
abolished. There is a downside, as many have pointed out,
that Democrats would focus on large cities and ignore
the rest of the country. This may be true and if
it is it isn't necessarily a good thing.
On the other hand there are good arguments to abolish it
(or at least change it radically), as well...
Democrats, nor Republicans for that matter, could not solely focus on large cities under the NPV any more than commercial advertisers could focus only on large cities. The total population of America's 50 biggest cities (in terms of population) represent only 15% of the US population. That means 85% of the US population lives in places with a population of less than 365k. Too focus solely on the urban electorate would get the Democrats destroyed.
