Electoral College reform comes up repeatedly on Free Republic and elsewhere, of course. Business Week does have a quasi-point, I guess: the votes of residents of 30+ states won't matter. Here in NC, for example, either a) President Bush will win by a bunch, or b) if it's close, it'll mean that Kerry has won a national landslide, and NC won't have been the critical determinant anyway. But the cure they propose is far worse than the disease. In addition to the merits of Federalism and the power held by the individual states, the electoral system tends to isolate, and therefore minimize fraud (vote-stealing in Chicago would swing only Illinois), and, as an even more practical matter, it helps determine the winner more quickly. How would we like to see a national recount? Florida 2000 would pale in comparison; the outcome could be in doubt, or at least contested, for months -- or years.
We've discussed proportional electoral votes (such as now exist in Maine and Nebraska) before. Such a scheme, implemented nationally, might bring more campaign attention to states previously regarded as locked up one way or the other. But I recall that you argued persuasively that such a system, if based on Congressional Districts, would make the current gerrymandering look like child's play. I can't dispute that. Another possibility which has been floated is to award electoral votes in proportion to each state's popular vote (e.g., if Bush receives 60% of North Carolina's vote, and Kerry receives 40% [a bit optimistic, granted], Bush would receive 9 electoral votes to Kerry's 6). That doesn't do much for me, either. It would tend to focus the race on major metro areas rather than swing states, but that doesn't strike me as an improvement.
So we're left with the old maxim: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Well, except for those pesky human electors.
ping
I agree with almost everything you said. Almost exactly right. Proportional allocation of electoral votes by states by popular vote (not by CD's which sucks for the reason you mentioned) does have its merits though (it would not lead to massive litigation, maybe in a couple of states if the electoral count were near even). Granted, it would lead to the candidates spending most of their time in the high population states. That seems appropriate to me. In short, swing states versus metro areas is not very persuasive as a policy argument. Why should swing states be so special, just because the geography happens to lead to a close partisan split? But it is not worth the bother. The electoral college as constructed in close enough. The idea is to get a quick result, by the rules, provided the popular vote is not way out of line. Close is good enough in horse shoes and electing a president.