IT would change how candidates campaign. Currently almost all of the attention, money and effort by presidential campaigns ends up being concentrated in the few states considered to be ‘swing’ states. Candidates ignore states where the electoral college outcome is a foregone conclusion before the race has even begun. The image below from National Popular Vote shows that most states hosted no 2012 general-election campaign events – the candidates focused on states seen as competitive.
IT would also change the incentives states and parties have to encourage participation and voting. Currently turnout only really matters in swing states. Parties and leaders in non-swing states like California and Oklahoma would have incentives to invest in public policies that encourage voter turnout in order to increase the vote totals of their favored candidate.
IT might also increase the importance of national as opposed to state policies to address election fraud. This issue was probably more important at an earlier time in US history when state election procedures were less robust, and the Voter Rights Act provided fewer protections. But one benefit of the Electoral College is that the impact of any nefarious policies in particular states that might prevent some people from voting, or artificially increase the vote totals of some other candidate is quarantined – the maximum impact is on the allocation of one state’s electoral votes. Under a national popular vote system, the impact could potentially be much larger.
Small states might lose out. The Electoral College gives small states more influence than they would otherwise have. Arguably this would put them in a weaker position to receive federal benefits.
