I'm just saying that if a small subset of states (NY/CA/TX/FL,etc) essentially could pick the President as an example, you run the risk of alienating a lot of s

I'm just saying that if a small subset of states (NY/CA/TX/FL,etc) essentially could pick the President as an example, you run the risk of alienating a lot of states, including some that are really important, but have small populations. And it could get to the point where they wish to exit the union. Let's say you lose the farmland and Alaska and some other important, but low population states. Is that worth it so everyone could say that the most votes will always win? We already have a system where candidates can just ignore states. They really can't ignore regions though with the electoral college. They have to have some cross regional appeal to win. That's a good thing. Straight popular votes is too risky for little gain. I care more about the states and their rights, the preservation of the union, the country's assets, and other things than ensuring that every vote is counted 1:1 in practice. For many, yes, their vote will not matter depending on who they vote for and where they live. But the founders anticipated more than most realize. It's like when you have an election with 10 candidates. Nobody gets a majority, but some people are like - whoever gets the most votes should win! That's not likely to be the best result. I'm a big fan of keeping it simple. But I don't believe a straight popular vote would be a better system with our history, today's divisiveness and the goals of preserving the union.