Electoral College should be abolished. And here's why...

[sooda]

Balance is already being achieved though. At least for the last 24 years and the trend continues with Trumps election in 2016.

Democrat Bill Clinton - 2 terms.

Both terms won by popular vote and EC.


Republican George W. Bush - 2 terms

1st won by EC lost popular vote by 500,000ish votes.

2nd won by EC and popular vote.

Democrat Barack Obama - 2 terms

Both terms won by popular vote and EC.


Republican Donald Trump - 1 term so far 2nd term is likely.

Won by EC lost on popular vote.

See a trend here? By abolishing the EC, it gives an advantage to the Democrats to seize power and never have to relinquish it.

If you truly wanted balance then you would be pro-EC.

Trump ranted and raved about doing away with the Electoral College in 2012.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It has to do with the perceptions you're outlining here. In your scenario, it's still ostensibly important whether these millions are Californians - as opposed to being Iowans, Nebraskans, Delawareans, or whatever. Why do these designations even matter? Why are they important?

If state designations are not important (or no more significant than county delineations), then why bother with a Senate? What's the point in having one, if states and their governments have no real significance or meaning in the democratic process?

As to how it relates - we're talking about states here: The identity and role of states in US history and our political culture.

The EC still has nothing to do with states rights in practice. That argument may have applied once, but with modern campaigning strategies that is no longer the case.

 

[Poisonshady313]

It has to do with the perceptions you're outlining here. In your scenario, it's still ostensibly important whether these millions are Californians - as opposed to being Iowans, Nebraskans, Delawareans, or whatever. Why do these designations even matter? Why are they important?

If state designations are not important (or no more significant than county delineations), then why bother with a Senate? What's the point in having one, if states and their governments have no real significance or meaning in the democratic process?

As to how it relates - we're talking about states here: The identity and role of states in US history and our political culture.

I don't know how or why pro-EC people have determined that pulling on the EC string will unravel the entire fabric of this nation's structure... it just seems to be one of two places this argument inevitably goes. And since I've already dealt with the issue of two states derermining every election, here we are.

The only reason, and I do mean the only reason I'm asking for state designations to be considered unimportant is for the singular task of electing the President of the United States.

Nothing else regarding the identity and role of states and their governments must change.

Nothing else regarding the democratic process must change.

(On an unrelated note, I wouldn't mind an amendment imposing term limits on Congress.)

 

[Stevicus]

The EC still has nothing to do with states rights in practice. That argument may have applied once, but with modern campaigning strategies that is no longer the case.

I would still ask, why bother having states rights at all? Come to think of it, why have state primaries all sprawled out over several months, as opposed to having a single national primary all on the same day?

I'm not saying that I'm against abolishing the EC, but I would question how/why anyone would believe that it can be considered separate from the very concept of states as it was originally conceived by the Founders.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I'm not saying that I'm against abolishing the EC, but I would question how/why anyone would believe that it can be considered separate from the very concept of states as it was originally conceived by the Founders.

The real question is why you consider these things inextricably linked.

 

[columbus]

The real question is why you consider these things inextricably linked.

It's not that they're totally linked, but there is some connections.

Honestly, I think it's more closely linked to partisanship.
The legislature of most states is dominated by one of the two parties. That party might not really represent the whole population, but all the party needs is a 51% majority, reliably, to dominate.
So, having a winner take all system serves the party interests. Texan Republicans and New York Democrats can reliably make minority views irrelevant by giving all the EC votes to their presidential candidate. Doesn't matter which party, they both do it.

And by letting people know that their presidential vote won't matter, they reduce the voting by anyone who doesn't support the party dominant in their state.

I see this as mainly a method for the Demopublican, or Republicrat if you prefer, Party to retain their power. They can shut out anybody else.
Tom

 

[Stevicus]

The real question is why you consider these things inextricably linked.

Well, because they are linked.

The thing is, whatever problems there may be with the US electoral system may not necessarily be fixed by simply abolishing the electoral college.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Well, because they are linked.

How?

The thing is, whatever problems there may be with the US electoral system may not necessarily be fixed by simply abolishing the electoral college.

Not completely, but it's a start.

 

[Shad]

It has to do with the perceptions you're outlining here. In your scenario, it's still ostensibly important whether these millions are Californians - as opposed to being Iowans, Nebraskans, Delawareans, or whatever. Why do these designations even matter? Why are they important?

If state designations are not important (or no more significant than county delineations), then why bother with a Senate? What's the point in having one, if states and their governments have no real significance or meaning in the democratic process?

As to how it relates - we're talking about states here: The identity and role of states in US history and our political culture.

As the US is a federation of sovereign states. That is why the Senate is state-based. It provide equal voice to the 50 states. The House is for the population of those states which are not equal.

 

[Stevicus]

How?

The EC has to do with states. The Senate has to do with states. States' rights has to do with states. We live in a country called the United States of America. Does any of this ring a bell?

Not completely, but it's a start.

Well, yes, it's a start. How do you imagine the finish to look like?

 

[Poisonshady313]

The EC has to do with states. The Senate has to do with states. States' rights has to do with states. We live in a country called the United States of America. Does any of this ring a bell?

You sound less like an adult making a point, and more like Shrek convincing Donkey that ogres are like onions.

I was hoping for facts and substance, and you're giving me "has to do with".


Try again. Do better.

Well, yes, it's a start. How do you imagine the finish to look like?

I imagine the finish will look like a direct national popular vote electing the President of the United States. It may not be perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than what we have now.

 

[Stevicus]

You sound less like an adult making a point, and more like Shrek convincing Donkey that ogres are like onions.

I was hoping for facts and substance, and you're giving me "has to do with".

Try again. Do better.

Oh, don't give me this kind of nonsense. I was giving you facts and substance. I had answered this same question numerous times, and you keep coming back with this lame "I don't see the connection." What am I supposed to do, draw pictures for you? What is it that you're not understanding? What are you asking for?

Maybe if your question had more facts and substance to start with, I could give you more facts and substance in the answer.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Oh, don't give me this kind of nonsense. I was giving you facts and substance. I had answered this same question numerous times, and you keep coming back with this lame "I don't see the connection."

You have done nothing of the sort.

I'm going to paraphrase the exchange so far. Let me know where I've gone horribly wrong.

I say get rid of the electoral college.
You say "well then, why bother even having a senate?"
I say "What does one have to do with the other?
You say "states' rights"
I say "How does the EC have anything to do with states rights"
You say "the EC has to do with states. States have to do with states. This is, after all, the United States.

You haven't answered my question. You've been evading my question numerous times. The most annoying thing is, you make it seem like it should be so obvious, yet when pressed to offer some sort of explanation, which should be amazingly easy for you to do, you give me nothing.

What am I supposed to do, draw pictures for you? What is it that you're not understanding? What are you asking for?

Let me demonstrate with an analogy.

It's as if I said "Instead of driving a manual transmission vehicle, we should all be driving automatic transmission vehicles." and then you said "Then why bother having traffic lights at intersections?"

As far as I can tell, one has absolutely nothing to do with the other, and you're sitting here saying "they both have to do with driving". And while I'm giving you ample opportunity to expand on how you've made this connection, you give me stuff like "well, if you knew a bit more about manual transmissions, you'd know exactly what I was talking about."

Maybe if your question had more facts and substance to start with, I could give you more facts and substance in the answer.

My original post had plenty of facts and substance. Then you come along and start asking some questions that don't seem to be relevant.

I'm asking you to show me how/why they're relevant. And you say "well, because they are".

All I want is for the millions of Americans who vote on election day to be able to elect their President without being filtered through this Electoral College. It's not useful except to disenfranchise millions of voters, inhibit voter turnout and make candidates only care about a small handful of swing states.

I don't want to deprive states of their sovereignty, I don't want to change anything about the structure or function of Congress, I don't want to make states indistinguishable from one another.

I just want voting for president to be something that matters. Because except for in a small handful of states, it doesn't.

 

[Stevicus]

You have done nothing of the sort.

I'm going to paraphrase the exchange so far. Let me know where I've gone horribly wrong.

I say get rid of the electoral college.
You say "well then, why bother even having a senate?"
I say "What does one have to do with the other?
You say "states' rights"
I say "How does the EC have anything to do with states rights"
You say "the EC has to do with states. States have to do with states. This is, after all, the United States.

I think that there was more discussed than just this brief summary.

You haven't answered my question. You've been evading my question numerous times. The most annoying thing is, you make it seem like it should be so obvious, yet when pressed to offer some sort of explanation, which should be amazingly easy for you to do, you give me nothing.

Well, you keep saying that you see no connection. There are very clearly obvious connections to the concepts being discussed. When you say you can't see it, I don't know if you honestly don't know the history or political structure of the United States, or if you're being intentionally disingenuous here.

It's easy for you to keep claiming "I don't see" or "I don't understand," but what are you really getting at here?

Let me demonstrate with an analogy.

It's as if I said "Instead of driving a manual transmission vehicle, we should all be driving automatic transmission vehicles." and then you said "Then why bother having traffic lights at intersections?"

As far as I can tell, one has absolutely nothing to do with the other, and you're sitting here saying "they both have to do with driving". And while I'm giving you ample opportunity to expand on how you've made this connection, you give me stuff like "well, if you knew a bit more about automatic transmissions, you'd know exactly what I was talking about."

This analogy doesn't work. But at this point, I don't want to bog down the discussion with a digression about manual vs. automatic transmissions.

My original post had plenty of facts and substance. Then you come along and start asking some questions that don't seem to be relevant.

Well, they may not be relevant to you, but you're the one who keeps saying "I don't see" and "I don't understand."

I'm asking you to show me how/why they're relevant. And you say "well, because they are".

All I want is for the millions of Americans who vote on election day to be able to elect their President without being filtered through this Electoral College. It's not useful except to disenfranchise millions of voters, inhibit voter turnout and make candidates only care about a small handful of swing states.

I don't want to deprive states of their sovereignty, I don't want to change anything about the structure or function of Congress, I don't want to make states indistinguishable from one another.

I just want voting for president to be something that matters. Because except for in a small handful of states, it doesn't.

Well, this brings us back to my initial response to your OP. The very sentences I wrote were this:

The issue is not so much the Electoral College. The issue is states and how Americans traditionally relate to the concept.

The point is that the Electoral College exists as a manifestation of the founding philosophy which favored the sovereignty of state governments and the relationship between the state governments and the national government. People tended to identify more with their state of birth; that was what was important to them. State governments were reluctant to surrender all of their power to the national government. If not for that, then the EC would not even exist, nor any other aspect of government favored by those who regarded state identities as important.

So, it came about as a compromise, which was necessary at the time. Is it still necessary today? Probably not.

To your other point, I also want voting for president to be something that matters. More importantly, I'd like a government that's a genuine reflection of the will of the people and responsive to the needs of the people. Abolishing the EC sounds good on the surface. I can see where one may derive some level of satisfaction from a popular election of the lesser of two evils, as opposed to having an Electoral College. But the EC has mostly reflected the popular vote anyway, with the exception of a few flukes. Apart from that, it seems more a symbolic gesture which won't really solve much or make presidential elections any more meaningful. Nor would it necessarily lead to better government.

 

[Poisonshady313]

The point is that the Electoral College exists as a manifestation of the founding philosophy which favored the sovereignty of state governments and the relationship between the state governments and the national government. People tended to identify more with their state of birth; that was what was important to them. State governments were reluctant to surrender all of their power to the national government. If not for that, then the EC would not even exist, nor any other aspect of government favored by those who regarded state identities as important.

This is what I've been waiting for.

Nowhere in any of my discussions about this topic has "any other aspect of government favored by those who regarded state identities as important" been at risk of being altered or disposed of. My desire to eliminate the electoral college is all about the singular task of electing the President of the United States.

States may be precious about having electors, but doing away with them does not make states less independent, less powerful, less important, less able to govern those who dwell within them.

It'll just mean that the value of one US citizen's vote for President will be precisely the same as any other US citizen's vote for President, regardless of what state they live in.

So, it came about as a compromise, which was necessary at the time. Is it still necessary today? Probably not.

Not just probably not. Definitely not. Several developments that have happened over time are responsible for this, including (in no particular order of importance)
Telecommunication
All states actually having their own popular vote (this was not the case in the beginning)
The two party system
Extreme differences in state population
Winner take all

There have never been enough faithless electors in any given election to change the result and the times when the popular vote and electoral vote differ are so few and far between it's hardly worth mentioning that it happens.

There are no good reasons to keep the electoral college around anymore.

...it seems more a symbolic gesture which won't really solve much or make presidential elections any more meaningful. Nor would it necessarily lead to better government.

That has more to do with the two party system and the primaries and such. It has been said that doing away with the EC might encourage more parties to get involved. Some see this as a bad thing. I do not. (Plus, I am in favor of imposing term limits on Congress. That would go a long way towards better government.)

But a direct popular vote for President will make everyone's vote more meaningful. More people will vote, candidates will have to address issues facing the whole country instead of focusing only on a small handful of swing states, and the true will of the people can finally be expressed and counted properly.

 

[Stevicus]

This is what I've been waiting for.

Nowhere in any of my discussions about this topic has "any other aspect of government favored by those who regarded state identities as important" been at risk of being altered or disposed of. My desire to eliminate the electoral college is all about the singular task of electing the President of the United States.

States may be precious about having electors, but doing away with them does not make states less independent, less powerful, less important, less able to govern those who dwell within them.

It'll just mean that the value of one US citizen's vote for President will be precisely the same as any other US citizen's vote for President, regardless of what state they live in.

I realize that you're trying to compartmentalize and separate the issues, but I don't think that's going to work. You're going to run into the same issues either way. And the individual citizen's vote for president has never been worth that much anyway.

Not just probably not. Definitely not. Several developments that have happened over time are responsible for this, including (in no particular order of importance)
Telecommunication
All states actually having their own popular vote (this was not the case in the beginning)
The two party system
Extreme differences in state population
Winner take all

If they eliminated the "winner take all" aspect of the Electoral College, most of the concerns would have been dealt with.

There have never been enough faithless electors in any given election to change the result and the times when the popular vote and electoral vote differ are so few and far between it's hardly worth mentioning that it happens.

There are no good reasons to keep the electoral college around anymore.

I don't think there are any good reasons to have the current boundaries of states. If state boundaries were redrawn so that each state has approximately the same population, then it would achieve the same result that you want.

Heck, there are states back east which are smaller than the county I live in. There's no good reason to have tiny states like Delaware, Rhode Island, or Connecticut. They can simply be absorbed into larger states.

That has more to do with the two party system and the primaries and such. It has been said that doing away with the EC might encourage more parties to get involved. Some see this as a bad thing. I do not. (Plus, I am in favor of imposing term limits on Congress. That would go a long way towards better government.)

I see your point about term limits, although the voters can always choose to vote against an incumbent at any time. If the voters are too weak-willed to vote against somebody, then that's still on the voters.

But a direct popular vote for President will make everyone's vote more meaningful. More people will vote, candidates will have to address issues facing the whole country instead of focusing only on a small handful of swing states, and the true will of the people can finally be expressed and counted properly.

I'm not convinced that eliminating the EC would encourage more people to vote. In a country of 320 million people, an individual's vote isn't really worth that much.

About swing states, the only reason they're focused on is precisely because the vote in those states is divided. It doesn't mean that other states are discounted or ignored.

But as I see it, the small handful of states which are focused on are states like Iowa or New Hampshire, since they're at the front of the line in the primary races and have a leading role in the nominating process. That's a far more influential and pivotal function, far more than the EC, which is a mere formality by the time they actually gather.

My opinion is that there should not be state primaries. There should be one national primary, two months before the general election. Party conventions should be eliminated, too.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I realize that you're trying to compartmentalize and separate the issues, but I don't think that's going to work.

Why not?

And the individual citizen's vote for president has never been worth that much anyway.

That's because we've always had the Electoral College. Get rid of the Electoral College, make the individual citizen's vote for president worth something.

If they eliminated the "winner take all" aspect of the Electoral College, most of the concerns would have been dealt with.

I wouldn't go so far as to say "most". But yes, it is a step in the right direction. Let's go back to California in 2016. Clinton got 61.5% of the vote in California. That's 8,753,788 votes. That's 33 electors (rounding down because you can't have a fraction of an elector) The 2010 US population was 308.7 million. Which means the value of an elector is 573,791 people. (Again, rounding down because you can't have a fraction of a person). Which makes 33 electors worth 18,935,103 people. So we've got 10,181,315 Californians who either can't or simply don't vote being spoken for by 8,753,788 Clinton voters. I get the idea that electors are representing the people of their state. But who the hell elected the 8.75 million Californian Clinton voters to represent the other 10.1 million Californians? How about Californian Trump voters? 17 electors is 9,754,447 people. Even though 4,483,810 Californians voted Trump. Who elected those people to speak on behalf of the other 5,270,637 Californians? We've got almost 15.5 million non-voting Californians whose support are being arbitrarily divided because of proportional allocation of electors in an electoral college... and that doesn't even take into account those whose votes are thrown away because of rounding down. Seems a lot cleaner and more meaningful if we let every vote speak for itself.

I don't think there are any good reasons to have the current boundaries of states. If state boundaries were redrawn so that each state has approximately the same population, then it would achieve the same result that you want.

Being being born, people dying, people immigrating (legally or otherwise) and all at different rates in certain locations within these new "states"... we'd have to redraw state boundaries every time we take a census. That doesn't seem practical. Why not just count the votes of people who actually vote?

I see your point about term limits, although the voters can always choose to vote against an incumbent at any time. If the voters are too weak-willed to vote against somebody, then that's still on the voters.

You don't trust voters enough to count their votes for president and you don't think that, in a presidential election, voters having their own voice would lead to better government, but you're content to rest the quality of government on a congressional level on the shoulders of voters using their voice? For someone so determined not to separate and compartmentalize, you've got some explaining to do.

I'm not convinced that eliminating the EC would encourage more people to vote.

When more people's votes matter, more people will vote. So many voters in safe states don't bother voting for president because they know it doesn't matter.

In a country of 320 million people, an individual's vote isn't really worth that much.

If you ever run for office, I hope you use that as your campaign slogan. See how that works out for you.

About swing states, the only reason they're focused on is precisely because the vote in those states is divided. It doesn't mean that other states are discounted or ignored.

It sure does.

But as I see it, the small handful of states which are focused on are states like Iowa or New Hampshire, since they're at the front of the line in the primary races and have a leading role in the nominating process. That's a far more influential and pivotal function, far more than the EC, which is a mere formality by the time they actually gather. My opinion is that there should not be state primaries. There should be one national primary, two months before the general election. Party conventions should be eliminated, too.

Ok. Interesting thought. Im sure it would be an iteresting topic for another thread.

 

[Stevicus]

Why not?

For the very reasons I've been mentioning. Just because you see it as separate from the identity of states doesn't mean that others will. Consider the reason the Electoral College hasn't been done away with already.

That's because we've always had the Electoral College. Get rid of the Electoral College, make the individual citizen's vote for president worth something.

Give the citizens a better choice as to who to vote for. That might help even more.

I wouldn't go so far as to say "most". But yes, it is a step in the right direction. Let's go back to California in 2016. Clinton got 61.5% of the vote in California. That's 8,753,788 votes. That's 33 electors (rounding down because you can't have a fraction of an elector) The 2010 US population was 308.7 million. Which means the value of an elector is 573,791 people. (Again, rounding down because you can't have a fraction of a person). Which makes 33 electors worth 18,935,103 people. So we've got 10,181,315 Californians who either can't or simply don't vote being spoken for by 8,753,788 Clinton voters. I get the idea that electors are representing the people of their state. But who the hell elected the 8.75 million Californian Clinton voters to represent the other 10.1 million Californians? How about Californian Trump voters? 17 electors is 9,754,447 people. Even though 4,483,810 Californians voted Trump. Who elected those people to speak on behalf of the other 5,270,637 Californians? We've got almost 15.5 million non-voting Californians whose support are being arbitrarily divided because of proportional allocation of electors in an electoral college... and that doesn't even take into account those whose votes are thrown away because of rounding down. Seems a lot cleaner and more meaningful if we let every vote speak for itself.

It wouldn't be exactly proportional, but it would be close enough.

Being being born, people dying, people immigrating (legally or otherwise) and all at different rates in certain locations within these new "states"... we'd have to redraw state boundaries every time we take a census. That doesn't seem practical. Why not just count the votes of people who actually vote?

There are other reasons for doing so, in order to maintain equality among the states. That was the whole idea in the first place, so that no one state could rule over other states.

You don't trust voters enough to count their votes for president and you don't think that, in a presidential election, voters having their own voice would lead to better government,

Hold on there. I never said that I was against your proposal to abolish the EC. In fact, I would go much further than that. My only point here is that a proposal to abolish the EC would be nothing more than an empty, symbolic gesture to make people feel that their vote counts. The problem is with states themselves and how people perceive the role of states in the overall structure of the country.

but you're content to rest the quality of government on a congressional level on the shoulders of voters using their voice? For someone so determined not to separate and compartmentalize, you've got some explaining to do.

But what about you? You're saying you want the voters to have their votes count, yet you would deprive them of their right to make the choice of whom they wish to vote for.

When more people's votes matter, more people will vote. So many voters in safe states don't bother voting for president because they know it doesn't matter.

I'm not convinced that more people would vote. Most elected offices are elected through popular mandate. The EC is only used for presidential elections. So, why don't more people vote for the other offices which may not be as powerful as president, but still has an effect on their lives and the quality of government? This is also true with state level ballot propositions. People are given the opportunity to change the law by direct mandate, yet so many still refuse to vote?

I just don't see how eliminating the EC will suddenly lead to masses of formerly apathetic voters suddenly rushing to the polls.

If you ever run for office, I hope you use that as your campaign slogan. See how that works out for you.

You think I should run for office?

It sure does.

No, their electoral votes count, too.

Ok. Interesting thought. Im sure it would be an iteresting topic for another thread.

Well, it's related to the overall topic of "making everyone's vote more meaningful."

 

[Poisonshady313]

Hold on there. I never said that I was against your proposal to abolish the EC. In fact, I would go much further than that. My only point here is that a proposal to abolish the EC would be nothing more than an empty, symbolic gesture to make people feel that their vote counts.

You're wrong. It would be neither empty nor symbolic. To abolish the EC is the only way to make people's votes count.

The problem is with states themselves and how people perceive the role of states in the overall structure of the country.

To abolish the EC would do nothing to affect the role of states in the overall structure of the country aside from reassigning the singular task of electing the President to the people.

But what about you? You're saying you want the voters to have their votes count, yet you would deprive them of their right to make the choice of whom they wish to vote for.

If you're going to use the words "yet you would deprive...", I'm going to insist that you provide evidence. What did I say that gives you that impression?

I'm not convinced that more people would vote. Most elected offices are elected through popular mandate. The EC is only used for presidential elections. So, why don't more people vote for the other offices which may not be as powerful as president, but still has an effect on their lives and the quality of government? This is also true with state level ballot propositions. People are given the opportunity to change the law by direct mandate, yet so many still refuse to vote?

For the same reason so many people who don't care about football watch the Super Bowl. It's more exciting because the stakes appear to be higher. The President is the highest office in the land, and the Super Bowl is the championship. But local and state elections (regular season games) affect voters more directly (affect more teams, more players, more fans.) But media coverage of the campaigns, the debates, and the election of the President are much more sensational, and people are more aware of it.

Having said that, I'm going to challenge your premise that more people don't vote for other offices/ballot propositions.

2016g - United States Elections Project

In 2016, every state except Texas showed a greater voter turnout for all ballots cast, vs ballots cast only for the highest office.

Nationally, the number of all ballots cast is just over 2.1 million greater than just ballots cast only for the highest office.

I just don't see how eliminating the EC will suddenly lead to masses of formerly apathetic voters suddenly rushing to the polls.

Because if they thought their vote actually mattered, maybe New York Trump voters might have represented more than 36.5% of all votes cast for President in NY.
Maybe more than 58.6% of all eligible voters in NY might have showed up to vote for President.
Maybe more than 59.2% of all eligible voters in America might have showed up to vote for President.

If you actually give the people a voice, they might be inclined to actually use it.

You think I should run for office?

Only if your campaign slogan is
"In a country of 320 million people, an individual's vote isn't really worth that much."

No, their electoral votes count, too.

They're not sought after. They're taken for granted.

After the primaries were over, how often do you think either campaign visited/held rallies in Kansas?

If your answer was "never", you'd be right.

Well, it's related to the overall topic of "making everyone's vote more meaningful."

I'm totally on board with revamping the primary process in this country. It just has nothing to do with my view on the electoral college.

 

[Stevicus]

You're wrong. It would be neither empty nor symbolic. To abolish the EC is the only way to make people's votes count.

It's certainly not the "only way," but I'm not going to press this particular point. We can agree to disagree here.

To abolish the EC would do nothing to affect the role of states in the overall structure of the country aside from reassigning the singular task of electing the President to the people.

It could affect people's perceptions of the role of states. That's why there's always been manifest resistance to the idea of abolishing the EC. It's why we still have it and why calling for its abolition is a non-starter.

If you're going to use the words "yet you would deprive...", I'm going to insist that you provide evidence. What did I say that gives you that impression?

You said you supported term limits. If the majority of voters in a district want to re-elect someone who has reached their term limits, then they are deprived of the opportunity to do so.

For the same reason so many people who don't care about football watch the Super Bowl. It's more exciting because the stakes appear to be higher.

The key phrase here is "appear to be." That puts it back in the realm of "symbolic."

The President is the highest office in the land, and the Super Bowl is the championship. But local and state elections (regular season games) affect voters more directly (affect more teams, more players, more fans.) But media coverage of the campaigns, the debates, and the election of the President are much more sensational, and people are more aware of it.

The thing is, the presidency wasn't really intended to be like that. The Founders did not want the President to be an equivalent to a king. And they didn't really want total democracy either, which is why other powerful offices in this country are appointed positions, not elected. This is true for the Supreme Court and the Federal judiciary, along with powerful cabinet posts such as Secretary of Defense or Attorney General.

Congress was intended to be the one body that represents the voice of the people. The people's voice could be heard through their representatives in Congress, which was considered to be good enough so that they wouldn't need to directly elect the Supreme Court, the Cabinet, or even the President himself.

But once the "Imperial Presidency" was established, then it somehow became much more important to have a clear mandate from the people.

Having said that, I'm going to challenge your premise that more people don't vote for other offices/ballot propositions.

2016g - United States Elections Project

In 2016, every state except Texas showed a greater voter turnout for all ballots cast, vs ballots cast only for the highest office.

Nationally, the number of all ballots cast is just over 2.1 million greater than just ballots cast only for the highest office.

Well, again, in the grand scheme of things - this isn't very much. Your link indicates an approximately 60% turnout in 2016. That means 40% of the people who could have voted didn't vote. Regarding the comparison of turnouts of presidential elections versus state/local elections, the difference you're citing here is negligible.

Because if they thought their vote actually mattered, maybe New York Trump voters might have represented more than 36.5% of all votes cast for President in NY.
Maybe more than 58.6% of all eligible voters in NY might have showed up to vote for President.
Maybe more than 59.2% of all eligible voters in America might have showed up to vote for President.

If you actually give the people a voice, they might be inclined to actually use it.

That's a lot of "maybes."

Only if your campaign slogan is
"In a country of 320 million people, an individual's vote isn't really worth that much."

Well, who knows? Maybe it would work as a kind of reverse psychology.

They're not sought after. They're taken for granted.

After the primaries were over, how often do you think either campaign visited/held rallies in Kansas?

If your answer was "never", you'd be right.

I can't say. I know they made a few trips to Arizona. But do they actually have to visit the state? The people in those states have the same access to information and can find out what the candidates stand for and base their choices on that. It's not really vital or necessary that the candidate actually visit the state.

Using your Super Bowl analogy, most people can't watch it in person. They have to watch it on TV.

I'm totally on board with revamping the primary process in this country. It just has nothing to do with my view on the electoral college.

Okay