No. What I have said is:
Candidates and campaign managers throughout the world know, that when and where every vote is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere there are potential voters for or against the candidate.
The indefensible reality is that in 2012 more than 99% of U.S. presidential campaign attention was showered on voters in just ten states - and that in today’s political climate, the swing states have become increasingly fewer and fixed.
Even in the recent handful of states where a presidential vote matters to the candidates, the value of a vote is different.
Where you live should not determine how much, if at all, your vote matters.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, will not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.
Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided “battleground” states and their voters. There is no incentive for them to bother to care about the majority of states where they are hopelessly behind or safely ahead to win.
10 of the original 13 states are ignored now.
Four out of five Americans were ignored in the 2012 presidential election. After being nominated, Obama visited just eight closely divided battleground states, and Romney visited only 10. These 10 states accounted for 98% of the $940 million spent on campaign advertising. They decided the election.
None of the 10 most rural states mattered, as usual.
About 80% of the country was ignored —including 24 of the 27 lowest population and medium-small states, and 13 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX.
It was more obscene than the 2008 campaign, when candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA).
In 2004, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their money and campaign visits in 5 states; over 80% in 9 states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
80% of the states and people have been merely spectators to presidential elections. They have no influence. That’s more than 85 million voters, 200 million Americans, ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.
The number and population of battleground states is shrinking.
Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
With National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere would be equal, politically relevant, and matter to the candidates. Candidates would reallocate their time, the money they raise, and their ad buys to no longer ignore 80% of the states and voters.
With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.
16% of Americans live in rural areas.
The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.
Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.
If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.
With a national popular vote, every vote everywhere will be equally important politically. There will be nothing special about a vote cast in a big city or big state. When every vote is equal, candidates of both parties will seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win. A vote cast in a big city or state will be equal to a vote cast in a small state, town, or rural area.
Candidates would need to build a winning coalition across demographics. Candidates would have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as waitress mom voters in Ohio.
With National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Wining states would not be the goal. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in the current handful of swing states.
The main media at the moment, TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural area. Candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas.
You do know that our Constitutional Republic was as system constituted by the states to manage cross-state disputes, and to unify national interests vis-a-vis foreign nations, right?
To that end, the House of Representatives was designed to be popularly elected by the People to represent the People, the Senate was designed to be appointed by the States to represent the States, and the President was to be selected by the States to faithfully execute the laws passed by the representatives of the People and the States.
The Electoral College was the means by which the States chose the Executive. The President was never meant to be the "king" of the People; he was meant to be the overseer of the disputes between the States, and therefore was selected by the States.
The 17th amendment broke the reins that the States held over Congress. That is why, today, we have a Congress that is disconnected from the People, and outright hostile against the States. The Senate is now beholden to the national parties who hand out campaign funds to those who toe the national party agenda line.
So now, you want to abandon federalism entirely, and take away the States' power to select their executive in the federal government?
-PJ
Why is this "indenfensible?" It is perfectly rational, and a good thing.
What this really means is that the people in most of the states have settled opinions on the matter of the president. Why do you see this as a bad thing?
You make it sound like each election has to be a sports event where the score starts at 0-0. Why?
The fact of those 10 so-called "swing states" is that their demographics keep changing, while the other states have not changed so much. Also, the swing states are the 10 that they are because of the way the other 40 states have settled on their preferences. If one or two of those states change, then the mix of swing states will change.
Where you live should not determine how much, if at all, your vote matters.
Who says it is not "determining" how much it matters? Again, if I live in a state of like-minded people whose minds are made up, how is that not still a determination? Just because it doessn't change from election to election doesn't mean it doesn't matter.
There is no incentive for them to bother to care about the majority of states where they are hopelessly behind or safely ahead to win.
Again, why is this a bad thing to you? Are you trying to force some kind of "cage match" year after year, wher the candidates must duke it out with a population that has already made up its mind? It seems like you want to deny the people their right to a settled opinion.
You want a system where the settled opinions of people in 40 states are overturned by the opinions of the people in Los Angeles, New York City, Boston, Philadelphia, and Baltimore.
-PJ
Let me also take another tack on this comment.
Where you live determines how much weight your state has in the Electoral College, because the Electoral College is not an equal suffrage body like the Senate, which also represents the States (not the People).
"Your vote" is a concept that is decided by each state's legislature for how their Electoral College votes are determined. All but two states use a winner-take-all based on that state's popular vote, and two states use congressional district apportionment with the state winner getting the Senate votes. However, a state could choose to not base it on popular votes at all, and instead award the states's Electoral Vote by legislative vote where the people have no vote.
So there is no foundational concept that it must be that "your vote matters." It's the States' votes to decide, not the People's votes.
-PJ