[serge2k]

There are other good reasons too.

The system isn't fair, voters in low pop states have more power than california.

The system emphasizes swing states above others, as the country is so split right now.

The system is worse for third party candidates (especially if a STV or ranked system was used. This would also please the Bernie or bust folk).

The system is outdated, it was meant to have a group of well informed electors make the decision about who is president. This doesn't makes sense anymore as the electors are pretty much bound to the will of the states popular vote, and people have access to more information. Plus the whole safeguard against someone unqualified idea has been tossed out the window now anyway.

[vacri]

> The system emphasizes swing states above others

It's hard to imagine a democratic system where swing voters don't hold disproportionate power. Rusted-on supporters will support you whatever may come, and the opponents' rusted-on supporters will never support you, so as a candidate you spend more time, effort, and money appealing to the noncommittal folks in the middle...

Even excellent voting systems like Condorcet don't change this particular equation; a hardcore supporter of you just simply doesn't need as much of your attention in an electioneering frame of mind.

This all being said, that doesn't mean the current systems in the US aren't horribly misrepresentative. Gerrymandering is a particular problem there.

[grzm]

Minor point: Swing voters and swing states are two different beasts. In the later case you can concentrate effort in one area to gain a quantum all-or-nothing jump: generally, all the EC votes in the state. To target swing voters you need to address a much larger geographic area, and only get the incremental advantage of one vote per person.

[fixxer]

Yup, agreed. As mentioned above, I'm for pop vote. But... Still a big change and the consequences are very complicated.