It is far easier to address many groups of people in many locations in a swing state than in a swing country. That is why candidates would ignore two-thirds of states in a direct popular vote; it would not be worth traveling a thousand miles from a few major population centers to appeal to a couple percentiles of the whole. In a swing state it is foolish to focus solely on the handful of largest cities when it is easy to quickly reach dozens of others that collectively have as much or more influence. Not only that, but instead of flying over them at 500 mph on the way to a high value destination, candidates often travel only a few dozen miles by car or bus between such destinations within a state. When passing through small town anyway, they might as well pull over for periodic brief rallies as they go.

The thing is, we do not WANT presidents to focus on their strong points, because they are the only federal leaders who represent the whole nation rather than just part of it. That makes a national focus vital, because the president is the leader entrusted with the responsibility of cutting through the state and local issues preoccupying Congress and balancing those competing regional interests on behalf of the national interest. Rural voters do not get disproportionate attention now, but they do get some; with a direct popular vote they would get almost none, because the return would be so marginal.


Because their collective worth is also far higher than NYs. How many times has WY deciding an election? Once: 2000 (I would say FL and NH decided that election more than WY did, but in a sense they all did.) New York has been pivotal in countless presidential elections since 1890. That has about three times as many people per elector partially offsets the fact those people collectively decide nine times more electoral votes. The smaller the state, the easier it is to carry, but the less advantageous it is to do so.

Regardless, to the extent there is an inequity, it lies, not in the Electoral College, but in Congressional representation. When one asks why NY has three times as many people per elector as WY one might as well ask why it has three times as many people per seats in Congress, because it is the same question. The Constitution explicitly recognizes states rights alongside those of individuals, and reflects that in electors. We do not want urban populations distributed over a few thousand square miles to dictate to rural populations distributed over half a continent, or to put the latter at the significant disadavantage that would exist if each were expected to collectively organize on their own behalf.


No, the NYC Combined Statistical Area (which was the list I linked) has 22 million voters; I rounded down (the Metro SA has about 19 million, so close enough. ) A candidate speaking at Madison Square Garden reaches a local crowd far larger than just those within the city limits. In fact, they reach audiences throughout "the tri-state area" that includes NJ (14 EVs) and CT (7 EVs,) as well as much of PA (20 EVs) and MA (11 EVs.) A candidate could make multiple appearances there and Boston, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh all in the same week and guarantee extensive local news coverage for nearly 40 million people, about 15% of the electorate. Even with AZ they would only reach about half as many people covering the Great Plains and Mountain West, but would have to jet around half the country to do it.

There are sound reasons not to do it that way, most of them having to do with sprinkling 5% of the planets population over half a continent.