[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Had to comment on this. This actually works against your point. In the every vote is equal scenario you would still be more effective lobbying the additional votes in the big cities assuming they were winnable than moving to GA.

Under the current scenario if you lock up a much smaller percentage there is no longer any incentive to stay in a state and you have an incentive to move on. You'll tend to not concentrate where your strengths are, even the big population centers if you've sewn the state up. You'll visit other places and they'll reap the benefits.

How so? Under either system people eventually make up their mind and/or get sick of you. You have to move on either way. In a popular vote system if your opponent is maximizing his vote in other states while your focusing on the biggest areas, you will lose. But under the electoral college, it's going to be a long long time before anyone seriously campaigns in Alabama, Utah, North Dakota, Vermont, Mississippi, etc.

Furthermore, as to your limited resources argument, it is MUCH MUCH more expensive to campaign in California or Florida or New York than in the smaller states. Bush himself showed in 2004 that you can win the popular vote even if you don't appeal to the large population centers. Look at a map of the voting distribution. Kerry won the most populated areas and Bush won the smaller areas, but won enough of them to make up for Kerry's advantage.