[oh_sigh]

Except in this case, rural CA voters ultimately got what they wanted, since they on average supported Trump over Hillary.

Also, if we went to a national popular vote, would their concerns be more likely to be heard? Or would the candidates just rally at LA/SD and SF/SV?

[vkou]

They would have also gotten what they voted if elections were done away with, and Trump were announced a winner by fiat. That doesn't make it a good system.

There are two problems for them.

1. Unequal distribution of EC votes.

2. State-based winner-take-all distribution of EC votes.

Yes, their concerns would be far more likely to be heard with the elimination of #1, and #2. They can be completely ignored because of #2, and even if they couldn't be, then due to #1, there are better places to focus on.

Under a popular vote system, with the margins for victory as they are, nobody would be able to ignore the rural vote, as a whole. Right now, that is exactly what happens - it is ignored - except in a handful of states (Which, strangely enough, receive an overwhelming amount of federal subsidies - it's no accident that ~75% of farming subsidies go to only 10% of farmers.)