"Popular" Republicans have always won the electoral vote.

[°Leprechaun]

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...

[°Leprechaun]

I could rephrase:

"More on big cities and less on sparse populations"

[°Leprechaun]

I could rephrase:

"More on big cities and less on sparse populations"

That doesn't change the original argument.

The spirit of the argument is this: should the electoral college be abolished, the winner of each election would largely be chosen by people who live in metropolitan areas and inner cities, because there are more people there. The interests of people who live in rural and frontier areas would be lost, because there are fewer of them.

Hence, the system is intended to insure that the interests of a minority (people who live in rural and frontier areas) aren't drowned out, because so many people live in cities and suburbs.

It is a way of leveling the playing field, to protect a minority population.

See where I'm going with this?

Yes. The Senate is based on a similar argument, as well.

[°Leprechaun]

I would point out that back in the 18th century representations were much more proportional
than they are now. California and Wyoming both have two Senate seats. This kind of situation
was very different in the 18th century. Most states were closer to average although obviously not nearly the same size in population. I am not a big advocate for changing the electoral college, but it might be a good idea. The biggest problem with the current situation is that at least 80% of the states are seen as safe and the voters in those states aren't highly motivated to vote in a presidential election.

Here is a fairly obvious example of what a close election could look like: