I think you mean, b/c rural votes would become less important than they are now, rural voters would be less interested in voting.  But if that effect partly determines voter turnout, the switch would increase large state voter turnout.  How do you know what the balance would be?

I don't KNOW what it would be. That's why I said I THINK. It is the whole disenfranchisement working at its best. Many minorities don't think their vote counts, so they vote in lower percentages than whites do. States that have a very extreme base, have much lower turnouts because people don't feel the need to vote, because they don't feel their vote matters. I think it would go to reason that if the popular vote was all that mattered, and the small states voices became smaller, that their turnouts would follow suit.

I think at the very least, they ought to expand the electoral college and make it so there is one elector for every 50K of people or so. Its better than adjusting for Congressional districts.... because instead of your vote meaning less when the population expands, it would represent the same everywhere. 1/50,000 th of a vote.

I think at the very least, they ought to expand the electoral college and make it so there is one elector for every 50K of people or so. Its better than adjusting for Congressional districts.... because instead of your vote meaning less when the population expands, it would represent the same everywhere. 1/50,000 th of a vote.

 

Did you notice the difference in the electoral college from 2000>2004?

 

8 EV's got moved from Blue states and ended up in Red states. California was the only blue state to gain an EV.

 

8EV's is more than the state of Iowa.

 

foil hat>

I don't.  I think the rural vote would die.

Absolutely correct.

f***in rural states, what do they need a vote for?

 

its all anarchy and injuns and warlords in them parts