[atmavatar]

> It would also be a bad idea to abolish the EC because then candidates would only ever campaign in cities.

As opposed to campaigning exclusively in the half-dozen swing states that matter?

[apparent]

At least those states have a mix of urban/rural/suburban areas. If there were no EC, Dems would campaign exclusively in cities.

[atmavatar]

Those cities encompass both urban and suburban areas, and they represent something like 80% of the country's population.

While I'm sympathetic to the notion rural areas should not go unrepresented, I find an electoral system where you only have to secure electoral votes for states representing ~25% of the population to win, only a handful of which you need to campaign at all due to the winner-take-all nature of virtually every state's electors to be strictly and starkly inferior to one in which a candidate needs to campaign for no less than 40-45% to secure a plurality.