First, it would give undue influence to large urban areas at the expense
of rural voters. Cities like New York City, San Francisco, Chicago and
Los Angeles would have far more importance in a popular vote than they
do in the Electoral College. Campaigning in Iowa and South Carolina,
which currently attracts much attention, would cease because voters in
those States would be of little significance to the Presidential
election. Instead of representing a diverse group of Americans from
across the nation, the President would represent those in large cities.
Second, it would have the potential to contradict the votes of those
within the State itself. If a candidate were to win the popular vote
nationwide but Californians had voted for another candidate, the votes
of Californians would not go to the one for whom they had voted but to
the one for whom citizens of other States had voted. So it would be
possible for the voters of populous states like New York, Illinois,
Texas and Florida to decide which candidate would receive California's
electoral votes.
While it theoretically is possible in the Electoral College to win the
Presidential election by winning the eleven most populous states
[California (55 votes), Texas (34), New York (31), Florida (27) Illinois
(21), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), Michigan (17), Georgia (15), New
Jersey (15), and North Carolina (15)] and disregard the rest of the
country, no President has ever come close to achieving such a feat. The
States themselves, though populous, are too diverse. Instead,
candidates must campaign across the country, maintaining the Founders'
original intent that Presidential candidates seek popular support over a
geographical majority of the country, not in isolated urban areas.
The Founding Fathers were highly suspicious of unregulated majorities.
Hence, they deliberately created the Electoral College to constrain the
will of the majority and to ensure that the votes of those in less
populous States were heeded. Californians should be wary of this latest
attempt to enfeeble the Electoral College. Power is seductive. James
Madison perceptively warned against unrestrained majority rule in
Federalist # 10. "When a majority is included in a faction, the form of
popular government enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or
interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens," he
wrote. "Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a
majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having
such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number
and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of
oppression...." This is great wisdom that, in spite of its age, is
applicable today.