I think this is indeed a real issue.

And I am not real convinced candidates would much bother with a national compaign. I don't think they would focus on the large states, but probably on the urban areas-so outside of a few major cities in the flyover country, I figure the candidates would spend most of their time on the two coasts.

I don't like the way the EC works either. Personally I like the way Maine works out its EC votes, where each congressional district votes on its elector and the state wide winner gets the extra vote. I actually think this would make a lot of states where a vote seems meaningless more meaningful-even a state like California or New York where the GOP doesn't have a chance would become more competitive. Also, this method would make the issue of recount perhaps a little less problematic.

The EC indeed has many flaws, but I think one system-preserving benefit is that it dramatically reduces the number of battlegrounds.

How do you feel about abandoning the EC for the popular vote, James?

I've taken the same path as Steven. I'm less of a Federalist than I once was generally and think the EC is a particularly outmoded vestige. For one thing, most of us move around with enough frequency that we're Americans first and Virginians, or whatever, second if at all.

Mostly, though, it's just silly. Alabama, where my parents have lived for 28 years and I still consider "where I'm from" if not "home," goes so overwhelmingly for the Republican candidate that there's simply no reason to vote. The outcome's a given and, since it's winner-take-all, it's a meaningless exercise. If you're a Republican, as I am, your vote is unnecessary. If you're a Democrat, your vote is voided.

The presidency is the one office even casually involved citizens care about. (Most don't know their Representative and, even if they did, the vast majority are in such safe seats that it doesn't matter.) But unless you live in a "swing state" -- which Virginia was, at least this cycle -- you don't get to participate meaningfully in his selection.

The argument, or one of the arguments, for the EC is that, without it, with simply a popular vote, candidates would shun the smaller states for the larger where the bulk of the votes are

I think that this is incorrect on two fronts. First, it makes the inherent assumption that the candidates somehow pay more attention to smaller states under the EC. They don't. They pay attention to competitive states, often ignoring, or mostly ignoring voters in both large and small states. Heck, do you think that voters in TX, NY and CA were given as much attention as, say, voters in FL, PA or NH this year (or even NM or CO)?

Second, if every vote counts equally, the candidates will have a motivation to run a truly national campaign, including small states.

Over the years I have gone from being ambivalent about getting rid of the EC to being a proponent, not that I expect it to happen any time soon, if ever.

Further, the Electoral College system, which renders the presidential vote in most states essentially irrelevant

The argument, or one of the arguments, for the EC is that, without it, with simply a popular vote, candidates would shun the smaller states for the larger where the bulk of the votes are. How do you feel about abandoning the EC for the popular vote, James?