I'm replying to a non-American about the EC, broad brush strokes are kinda required.



During the primaries the candidates spend a lot of time in the non-swing states. Iowa isn't one. Also swing states shift over the years, generally faster than major cities grow from small villages. Ohio wasn't even considered a swing state till 1980. You're also locking up on the concept of two-party rule where the parties don't change, as though this entire concept is only possibly valid in such a case. Consider a place like the UK, where the person I replied to comes from IIRC, which has a very significant third party and some others, or even the US, where more than one election in living memory had a third party candidate who acquired a bigger share of the popular vote than the amount separating the D and R and would get even more if they looked like 'throwing your vote away' might not apply this time. A regional third party that was fairly dominant has more effective bargaining power in EV then an equally numerous evenly distributed third party, and there is some logic to that, as one legitimately has more reason to worry about 10 % of the national population living in a region of the country being specifically dissatisfied then 10% distributed overall, they are in a position to nurse their grudges and contemplate breaking away. Consider if New England started becoming discontent, and proximity resulted in a lot of conversion in the area, a growing third party there would be a much larger threat of civil discord and breakaway then and equal number of people spread around... this has happened before after all, the north outnumbered the south 22-9 million IIRC and blacks couldn't vote. It would only take a majority of the white adult males of those 9 mill to effectively breakaway, the EV would probably help to minimize that if a given chunk of the country began becoming an effective third party in this day and age.

We can talk about red state blue state but there's really no such thing, a state with few exceptions is essentially red or blue based on its urban vs rural breakdown, cities are not really capable of rebellion, one could do it but not all of them at once. Cleveland isn't going to break off with NYC to form a new country.



You're stating an opinion that young people are disenfranchised which is simply not factual. A young person who can legally vote and do so as easily as an older one in the same circumstance can not be considered disenfranchised by any reasonable definition of the term.

Furthermore, what is this "not consistent with"? Of course a mandatory voting system would have more young than old people. In any human population which is static or growing there will be more 18 year olds than 60 year old, even in the static one there will be deaths by accident. Last I checked there were about 4 million births in the US versus 2.5 million deaths each year, hence a growing population, also immigrants tend not be senior citizens as much. If more people were born in 1993 than 1933 then there will be more 19 year old voters than 79 year old voters, even assuming general attrition and immigration haven't exacerbated that. The baby boom did produce a big bubble, but the current numbers now match that birthrate and the current 18-23 year olds also parallel that and they are the young voters. Regardless, on average a nation with a growing or static population will have more 18 year olds than 19 year olds, and they more than 20, and so on.



And you base that off what? Any particular clause of the Constitution or federal law? Also, do keep in mind I'm discussing general voting concepts to someone who is not an American. Concepts like paying voters, mandatory reg or voting, electoral holidays, etc all deserve commentary in the general theme of why the birthplace of modern Democracy does things differently then many who have taken up the practice and find our ways incomprehensible.

It is, FYI, entirely legal to pay people to register to vote. It is, however, illegal to pay people to vote for any given candidate in a Federal contest. Most states have laws on the matter too. This, however, really is quite meaningless. It is quite legal for a state to make Election Day a Holiday and if it so pleases it can probably set up state-funded party events near the polling sites. What's more, every so often individual states knock around the idea of making voting mandatory in their own state, and the constitutionality of that has, last I checked, never been ruled on and makes for various roughly evenly matched academic discussions. NY wouldn't have to pay people anything if it just made it mandatory, and to be honest some place like NY or Cali would be much more likely to be able to get that on the books then, say, Texas. You want realism then try this one, what if Cali passed that law right now, jammed right into the infamous Ninth Circuit, care to speculate on who would win the popular vote in any even vaguely close race?

Further this is where you become unrealistic, where there is a law, there is usually a way to duck around it. Let us say the law specifically banned paying people to vote for someone. Now, in such a case people could be paid to register and the group doing it could pay people to vote only certain areas, not even asking who they voted for or requiring proof. Do that in a hard blue area and it amounts to vote buying. Or if all that got banned or is banned, what about a state that decides to 'honor' voters with a sticker, as they do now, but which was good as a $20 gift certificate at various sponsor stores or even made out of some conveniently fungible material like copper.

"Hey, let's make it a holiday in our state, as we've a legal right to do, and we'll spend a bunch of money hosting concerts about patriotism in the parks near the biggest polling locations... and we'll keep sending out registration forms to everyone until they send one in, reminding them about the concert in their area, and all the really cool rides and other stuff people will be setting up to go in tandem with it."

or, "Let's just keep sending out registration forms and absentee ballot applications to everyone, every week until they register and apply" which they definitely have the legal right to do. If they wanted to be really obnoxious about they could even make it a bright orange package with a sad face on it that had to be signed for, so all their neighbors knew they didn't care about democracy or wasting tax money on monthly deliveries. That last might be a bit overt and unrealistic but there's tons of more subtle ways to do it and it all comes down to stats and cost benefit. If you're the Dem Governor of a big blue, you're not likely to see too much objection from your legislature or even the populace if you start going apeshit trying to get the youth vote out. Right now only swing states have serious motivation to try these sorts of shenanigans and they typically have a fairly even balance in their own state gov'ts to resist one side or the other playing games.



Every vote would matter, is it? If all votes are truly equal what candidate in their right mind would ever hold a rally anywhere that wasn't within easy driving distance of a a few million people? And incidentally I would not believe the popular vote winner should be president over the EV winner. If I thought that, I wouldn't believe in having the EV, as you clearly do not. I like our current system just fine, every state gets its pop+2 and every state apportions it's votes under its own rules, this gives states significance in of themselves, not as some arbitrary designation on a map. We're the United States not the United Cities or the United Counties or the Union of Free Americans.



Yes, the person I replied to is not from America and lives within spitting distance of two places that have it. Furthermore, many of those who argue for popular vote over EV also favor mandatory voting or election day holidays and so on.