Leave it to you to use "math" while missing the point. OF COURSE those three states aren't going to win the election outright. Who would argue that? It's that those 3 states can CARRY an election more consistently than the current system. Think about the battleground states that mattered last election: Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin. Is that not a better representative of America than NY and Cali? Of course it is. I can't speak for other posters, but I don't think it's a stretch to reason that when people say NY and Cali, they aren't being literal. They are representatives of the NE metropolises and the entire West Coast.  

What's interesting about the following graph, Mikesez?

Please help me with the "math" on this. Clinton won exactly one demographic, and that was urban cores, which she won in a landslide. This alone was enough to win her the popular vote. The divide between cities and towns is growing larger and there are no trends to suggest otherwise. What do you think is going to happen when more people move to the city as trends suggest? It's a rhetorical question, because even you aren't obtuse enough to miss something this obvious. Then again, I consistently underestimate your ability to manufacture drivel.

Again, my point earlier, that you have conveniently glossed over AGAIN with your "math," is that there is a huge trend among millennials towards urbanization. And as more people urbanize, the left would have more power with a national popular vote. And, as they get more power, the people in "flyover" flyover states are going to lose the ability to influence the direction of the Presidency. And, since the US isn't a democracy, but a Republic, it is unacceptable (by design) for a major portion of the US to not have an opportunity to influence the Presidential election. And they don't need to win every time, but have the opportunity to do so. Do you see how coherent that argument is, Mike?

In defense of your argument, I considered the notion that conservatives might turn out in greater numbers in states they can't usually win with the EC, like the NE and west coast, but this would be true for liberals to an even greater extent (since conservatives are already turning out in higher numbers currently). So, my position remains that you are simply advocating for a system that favors the left for no good reason. Yeah, yeah... parties. Not a valid argument.

---