‘does democracy really need to be more complicated than “most votes wins”? ‘
If one doesn’t want the mob to rule, then yes.
“Existential” is such a popular word these days- the author could have considered WHY some states are swing states.
A fun read anyway, despite it’s undertone.
Also, this system harks back from when the Federal government was the catch-all for what was impossible for states to do, rather than an all-embracing Uncle. If you are really voting for a personal Uncle then you might want a pure democracy; if you want something whose affairs are mostly related to the interests of states, then you want being a state to count for something in and of itself.
Certainly something to be avoided. I think the Founders knew well that ochlocracies generally end badly for everyone. Rule of law (Constitution) is really all that stands between us and the pitchforks of the mob. That's why Obama and the 'Rats are so dangerous. For them, ideology comes ahead of the law (except for maybe Hillary, who seems to crave money more than anything, although she is a purebred ideologue as well).
The founders wanted the winner to have wide support across the country, rather than deep support in just a few states, as a way of avoiding civil war.
In the election of 1860, the anti-Lincoln vote was split among three candidates, resulting in Lincoln winning with just 39.8% of the popular vote, and all his support in the North. The Civil War followed immediately.