A national popular vote would provide candidates an incentive to advertise in local TV markets nationwide.
One-third of Americans would agree to forfeit their voting rights for a pay raise of 10%. How can you blame them when the vast majority of votes cast for president do not matter?
If we selected the president based upon the winner of the most votes nationally, no voter would be ignored and every vote would matter.
94 percent of Americans responded that they supported background checks for all gun buyers. How would they feel about guns that can avoid them entirely?
Only in the 21st century did densification and polarization produce a situation in which each of the two major parties' candidates chose not to compete in a large number of states conceded to the rival.
A state could not deny its citizens the right to speak to everyone in the country and to assemble with other states’ citizens. It should not deny its citizens the right to have all their votes tallied with the votes of others.
With no engagement by the candidates, voters outside of closely contested battleground states will feel ignored. And ignored voters can quickly become nonvoters.
Tyranny of the majority? Our Constitution was established by the most radically democratic and popular action known to history.
States don't belong to parties, they belong to people – people who move, people whose lives are affected by changing economies – and the political leanings of the states where they live will continuously evolve as a result.