If EC abolished, where would candidates campaign?

[Suburbia]

I'd campaign in Iowa, Nebraska, NY, CT.

[Suburbia]

Would Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan matter?

[brucejoel99]

For one thing, candidates would actually campaign in states they wouldn't otherwise win (Democrats in Nebraska, Republicans along the coasts), as every extra vote that you could possibly get would have value. For example, losing California 35-65 because they made a couple campaign stops there would be way better for a Republican nominee than otherwise losing it 30-70 by default.

[Del Tachi]

Republicans and Democrats would just campaign in the places where they could get the most votes, regardless of how "safe" the state was for either party.  National elections would become largely about turning-out your most rabid supporters and candidates would gravitate towards highly-populated, ideologically-monotone vote sinks (i.e., Horry County, SC for the GOP; Cook County, IL for the Dems).  Switching to a NPV system wouldn't make candidates visit rural areas any more than they do now, just because its hard/expensive to reach voters their and they're outnumbered by urban/suburban voting blocs anyway.

[Hammy]

National elections would become largely about turning-out your most rabid supporters

And this is different from the current environment how?

[brucejoel99]

National elections would become largely about turning-out your most rabid supporters

And this is different from the current environment how?

Presidential campaigns focus heavily on swing voters & battleground states. This is American Politics 101 stuff here.

[Skill and Chance]

Would Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan matter?

Florida clearly would.  If either side could get a 5% margin out of it, that would substantially swing the NPV.  OH/PA/MI are all more populous than the median state, so they would clearly still matter, just perhaps not as much and they would lose some turnout attention to Dems in Texas downtowns and Reps in inland/exurban CA. 

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

11.96% of the time California
8.68% of the time in Texas
6.44% of the time in Florida
5.91% of the time in New York
3.87% of the time in Pennsylvania
3.85% of the time in Illinois
3.53% of the time in Ohio
3.18% of the time in Georgia
3.14% of the time in North Carolina
3.02% of the time in Michigan
2.69% of the time in New Jersey
2.58% of the time in Virginia
2.28% of the time in Washington
2.17% of the time in Arizona
2.09% of the time in Massachusetts
2.50% of the time in Tennessee
2.02% of the time in Indiana
1.85% of the time in Missouri
1.83% of the time in Maryland
1.76% of the time in Wisconsin
1.72% of the time in Colorado
1.70% of the time in Minnesota
1.54% of the time in South Carolina
1.48% of the time in Alabama
1.41% of the time in Louisiana
1.35% of the time in Kentucky
1.27% of the time in Oregon
1.19% of the time in Oklahoma
1.08% of the time in Connecticut
0.96% of the time in Utah
0.95% of the time in Iowa
0.92% of the time in Nevada
0.91% of the time in Arkansas
0.90% of the time in Mississippi
0.88% of the time in Kansas
0.63% of the time in New Mexico
0.58% of the time in Nebraska
0.53% of the time in Idaho
0.55% of the time in West Virginia
0.43% of the time in Hawaii
0.41% of the time in New Hampshire
0.40% of the time in Maine
0.32% of the time in Montana
0.32% of the time in Rhode Island
0.29% of the time in Delaware
0.27% of the time in South Dakota
0.23% of the time in North Dakota
0.22% of the time in Alaska
0.21% of the time in the District of Columbia
0.19% of the time in Vermont
0.17% of the time in Wyoming

as opposed to
17.79% of the time in Florida
13.78% of the time in North Carolina
13.53% of the time in Pennsylvania
12.03% of the time in Ohio
5.76% of the time in Virginia
5.51% of the time in Michigan
5.26% of the time in Iowa
5.26% of the time in New Hampshire
4.76% of the time in Colorado
4.36% of the time in Nevada
3.51% of the time in Wisconsin
2.51% of the time in Arizona
5.94% of the time in 49 other states

[Crumpets]

Everywhere they could, just like statewide candidates already do.

[Mehmentum]

Places with higher elasticity, probably (unless they're going with a mobilize the base campaign).

The general trend seems to be the New England and the mountain west have the highest share of persuadable voters.  Meanwhile the Deep South is highly inelastic.

OTOH, candidates might hit up urbanized regions for efficiency sake. Exe. going on tour through California or the northeastern urban areas (DC to Boston).

[cris01us]

Well if I'm a Democrat I'm going to the largest 10 metro areas in the country, repeatedly, and maybe dip down into 11-15.  And if I'm in the GOP, I'm just going to pray and watch my party never win another Presidential election. Hahaha, I kid, but that's probably not far off.

[lfromnj]

11.96% of the time California
8.68% of the time in Texas
6.44% of the time in Florida
5.91% of the time in New York
3.87% of the time in Pennsylvania
3.85% of the time in Illinois
3.53% of the time in Ohio
3.18% of the time in Georgia
3.14% of the time in North Carolina
3.02% of the time in Michigan
2.69% of the time in New Jersey
2.58% of the time in Virginia
2.28% of the time in Washington
2.17% of the time in Arizona
2.09% of the time in Massachusetts
2.50% of the time in Tennessee
2.02% of the time in Indiana
1.85% of the time in Missouri
1.83% of the time in Maryland
1.76% of the time in Wisconsin
1.72% of the time in Colorado
1.70% of the time in Minnesota
1.54% of the time in South Carolina
1.48% of the time in Alabama
1.41% of the time in Louisiana
1.35% of the time in Kentucky
1.27% of the time in Oregon
1.19% of the time in Oklahoma
1.08% of the time in Connecticut
0.96% of the time in Utah
0.95% of the time in Iowa
0.92% of the time in Nevada
0.91% of the time in Arkansas
0.90% of the time in Mississippi
0.88% of the time in Kansas
0.63% of the time in New Mexico
0.58% of the time in Nebraska
0.53% of the time in Idaho
0.55% of the time in West Virginia
0.43% of the time in Hawaii
0.41% of the time in New Hampshire
0.40% of the time in Maine
0.32% of the time in Montana
0.32% of the time in Rhode Island
0.29% of the time in Delaware
0.27% of the time in South Dakota
0.23% of the time in North Dakota
0.22% of the time in Alaska
0.21% of the time in the District of Columbia
0.19% of the time in Vermont
0.17% of the time in Wyoming

as opposed to
17.79% of the time in Florida
13.78% of the time in North Carolina
13.53% of the time in Pennsylvania
12.03% of the time in Ohio
5.76% of the time in Virginia
5.51% of the time in Michigan
5.26% of the time in Iowa
5.26% of the time in New Hampshire
4.76% of the time in Colorado
4.36% of the time in Nevada
3.51% of the time in Wisconsin
2.51% of the time in Arizona
5.94% of the time in 49 other states

Obama?
Btw not neccesarily. Dont forget turnout and citizen voting age population. Turnout may be a bit dependent on how competitive the state is, but culture also matters.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

11.96% of the time California
8.68% of the time in Texas
6.44% of the time in Florida
5.91% of the time in New York
3.87% of the time in Pennsylvania
3.85% of the time in Illinois
3.53% of the time in Ohio
3.18% of the time in Georgia
3.14% of the time in North Carolina
3.02% of the time in Michigan
2.69% of the time in New Jersey
2.58% of the time in Virginia
2.28% of the time in Washington
2.17% of the time in Arizona
2.09% of the time in Massachusetts
2.50% of the time in Tennessee
2.02% of the time in Indiana
1.85% of the time in Missouri
1.83% of the time in Maryland
1.76% of the time in Wisconsin
1.72% of the time in Colorado
1.70% of the time in Minnesota
1.54% of the time in South Carolina
1.48% of the time in Alabama
1.41% of the time in Louisiana
1.35% of the time in Kentucky
1.27% of the time in Oregon
1.19% of the time in Oklahoma
1.08% of the time in Connecticut
0.96% of the time in Utah
0.95% of the time in Iowa
0.92% of the time in Nevada
0.91% of the time in Arkansas
0.90% of the time in Mississippi
0.88% of the time in Kansas
0.63% of the time in New Mexico
0.58% of the time in Nebraska
0.53% of the time in Idaho
0.55% of the time in West Virginia
0.43% of the time in Hawaii
0.41% of the time in New Hampshire
0.40% of the time in Maine
0.32% of the time in Montana
0.32% of the time in Rhode Island
0.29% of the time in Delaware
0.27% of the time in South Dakota
0.23% of the time in North Dakota
0.22% of the time in Alaska
0.21% of the time in the District of Columbia
0.19% of the time in Vermont
0.17% of the time in Wyoming

as opposed to
17.79% of the time in Florida
13.78% of the time in North Carolina
13.53% of the time in Pennsylvania
12.03% of the time in Ohio
5.76% of the time in Virginia
5.51% of the time in Michigan
5.26% of the time in Iowa
5.26% of the time in New Hampshire
4.76% of the time in Colorado
4.36% of the time in Nevada
3.51% of the time in Wisconsin
2.51% of the time in Arizona
5.94% of the time in 49 other states

Obama?
Btw not neccesarily. Dont forget turnout and citizen voting age population. Turnout may be a bit dependent on how competitive the state is, but culture also matters.

Clinton + Trump in 2016.

And yeah, that should say 39.

Broadly, you're correct, although I'd still expect campaigning time to approximate the state's portion of the American population.

[Alben Barkley]

Despite the argument that the EC benefits smaller states, I sure don’t feel like it benefits individual voters in those states. Candidates have no incentive to campaign in a state like Kentucky already, AND they have no incentive to campaign in larger states that are solid blue or red either. They really just campaign in a handful of swing states. A NPV would make a 50 state strategy more viable, and it just makes more sense in our modern age where we’re more connected than ever and technology allows you to easily campaign to large numbers of people across the nation. Suddenly where votes are, which is rather arbitrary, would matter much less than just getting as many votes as you can. I would feel like my vote actually matters now, because it goes into the same pool as a Florida vote rather than just is discarded instantly because the Kentucky electors are all going to the Republican anyway. I know I’m not alone in this — I’m sure Republicans in blue states would feel like their vote counts more too.

Yes, candidates might spend the most time in places with large populations to get more votes. But they already do that, just within a more limited range of states. Now Democrats might campaign in say Kansas City and Republicans might campaign in say San Diego. I also think both actually might feel more compelled to visit smaller, rural states — Republicans to hold on to their advantage in those areas and Democrats to improve their margins there, knowing every vote counts and they won’t just instantly become worthless because the Republicans will win the state anyway and even if they didn’t it’s not worth many EVs so there’s no point in campaigning there.

[Non Swing Voter]

If the EC were abolished then the "swing voter" or "tipping point voter" or whatever, would be very different.  The GOP would have to become a lot less conservative, particularly on social issues like abortion and gun control.  I'm Assuming the GOP cares about having any chance of winning elections and would do so.  In which case they'd probably campaign in large suburban areas where there are genuinely swing voters.  For instance, NYC suburbs, Chicago suburbs, DC suburbs, Seattle suburbs, various CA suburbs. 

It would still be suburbs, like it is now, but state lines wouldn't matter and the parties would shift left, so they'd be more focused on large metro area suburbs rather than say, the suburbs of Charlotte, Las Vegas, Detroit. 

[cris01us]

The population of the 10 most populous cities in America, which are in six different states, equals as much as the next 44 cities spread over an additional 21 states.

The top 7 metro-areas (New York – Newark, L.A. – Long Beach, Chicago – Naperville, Washington – Baltimore – Arlington, San Jose – San Francisco – Oakland, Boston – Worcester – Providence, and Dallas – Fort Worth) comprises 1.3M more people than the next 23 metro-areas in the U.S. combined.
 
The top 10 states in population comprise 50.54% of the entire U.S. population. 

Metro-areas are traditional Democratic strongholds with under performance in turnout.  It's a no-brainier to go to these areas and drive up turnout to erase vast swaths of votes across the rest of the country. 

[MarkD]

So far, the best answer posted is this:

Everywhere they could, just like statewide candidates already do.

It makes a lot more sense to say that than to say that Democrats would focus on getting higher turnout in the big metro areas, as if that could even be accomplished. Why isn't there high turnout in big metro areas already? And what exactly would Democrats do to make sure that there IS higher turnout in those areas?

[Figueira]

They would campaign in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and other big cities (with maybe a few photo ops in rural areas) but it's not like other places wouldn't matter. You don't need to have a candidate personally knock on your door in order to have the right to vote.

National elections would become largely about turning-out your most rabid supporters

And this is different from the current environment how?

Presidential campaigns focus heavily on swing voters & battleground states. This is American Politics 101 stuff here.

There are lots of rabid supporters of candidates in battleground states. Turning them out is good but not as efficient as flipping swing voters. This wouldn't change under a popular vote system.

[cris01us]

It makes a lot more sense to say that than to say that Democrats would focus on getting higher turnout in the big metro areas, as if that could even be accomplished. Why isn't there high turnout in big metro areas already? And what exactly would Democrats do to make sure that there IS higher turnout in those areas?

There isn't high turnout because most folks already know the outcome and therefore resign themselves to not voting.  It's sort of a "what's the point" mentality, which is fairly understandable.  But given a NPV, the message to these same exact people is going to have a bit of a twist.  The party can easily pit it's urban voters directly against entire swaths of voters across the country.  Suddenly these same voters who were staying at home and not bothering to vote are pitted directly against a guy from fly over country (or entire states of flyover country).  They've never really cared about Mr. Flyover's policies or the outcome of his state's election and they've never had an impact on it - under the new system now they do.  That's the power of the NPV.

[Skill and Chance]

If the EC were abolished then the "swing voter" or "tipping point voter" or whatever, would be very different.  The GOP would have to become a lot less conservative, particularly on social issues like abortion and gun control.  I'm Assuming the GOP cares about having any chance of winning elections and would do so.  In which case they'd probably campaign in large suburban areas where there are genuinely swing voters.  For instance, NYC suburbs, Chicago suburbs, DC suburbs, Seattle suburbs, various CA suburbs. 

It would still be suburbs, like it is now, but state lines wouldn't matter and the parties would shift left, so they'd be more focused on large metro area suburbs rather than say, the suburbs of Charlotte, Las Vegas, Detroit. 

This was probably true during 2000-2012, but now I actually think the EC is forcing Republicans to be more libertarian than they otherwise would be and Dems more populist.  Without the EC, Republicans go all in on chasing the economically struggling culturally conservative vote and not worry about narrowly losing urbanized Southern states.  Trump's best path to a PV majority in 2020 is going full Boris Johnson/JBE on economic programs and getting 80% of the vote in Appalachia/much of the Mississippi Valley.  He has flirted with this a bunch of times now as it is but the business wing always gets him to back down.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Let's say the NPVIC goes into full effect instead, with every pending state passing, and these being the holdouts:

Nevada
Idaho
Utah
Arizona
Montana
Wyoming
North Dakota
South Dakota
Oklahoma
Texas
Iowa
Arkansas
Louisiana
Wisconsin
Michigan
Indiana
Kentucky
Mississippi
Alabama
Florida
Maine
Alaska

With the these states holding out, Florida would probably still get the most attention, followed by Nevada and the Midwestern states. Of course, the NPVIC states would be more important, but it's odd to concider Kansas and South Carolina getting more visitis than Florida.

[brucejoel99]

Let's say the NPVIC goes into full effect instead, with every pending state passing, and these being the holdouts:

Nevada
Idaho
Utah
Arizona
Montana
Wyoming
North Dakota
South Dakota
Oklahoma
Texas
Iowa
Arkansas
Louisiana
Wisconsin
Michigan
Indiana
Kentucky
Mississippi
Alabama
Florida
Maine
Alaska

With the these states holding out, Florida would probably still get the most attention, followed by Nevada and the Midwestern states. Of course, the NPVIC states would be more important, but it's odd to concider Kansas and South Carolina getting more visitis than Florida.

'NPVIC states vs. holdout states' would have nothing to do with it since the popular vote within such 'holdout states' would still be taken into account with regards to how the NPVIC states would cast their EC votes.

[Blackacre]

There would have to be a balance between turnout campaigning in your strongholds, and persuasion in the Midwest and southeast.

The first couple post-NPV elections would have heavy campaigning in safe states with low turnout, because there would be a LOT of new votes to get. Examples include New York, Arkansas, Hawaii, Louisiana, and Oklahoma.

Aside from that, the meta would probably favor areas with cheap media markets relative to the number of voters, elastic states, states with heavily populated metro areas, and areas that you can’t reach as easily with earned media coverage. Oh, and Black voters in the South.

Edit: Puerto Rico would become more important, too. Also, the Presidential race would focus more on states with competitive Senate races.

[Pollster]

Probably the most competitive Congressional districts and Senate race states.

[President Biden Democrat]

This is very interesting. This would likely only effect the Presidential Race. Some candidates would still campaign in close states and in areas where voters swing. But, a large campaign (bigger than in our TL), will go out to increase turnout nationally, especially in cities and among minorities in those cities. This would obviously benefit Democrats as they have won the popular vote in six of the last seven elections (except 2004). Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016 by over three million voters. It would be very very hard for Republicans to make up the margin nationally.