I never understand this argument about landmasses having the power . Why not 1 legal citizen 1 preferably ranked vote ? Where they live becomes irrelevant . The repressed conservatives of California finally get their say , as do the repressed liberals of Texas . Why do people think a geographically diverse minorityrule and frankly it ' s dubious whether it even accomplishes that is preferable to majority rule ? Obviously a rule of 51 % isn ' t great , but why is a rule of far less of the population just the swing states more desirable ? If the argument is that it ' s simply infeasible to convince smaller states to relinquish their disproportionate power , then the simple answer is that they the citizens of those states should be reminded that unless they ' re a swing state , they already don ' t affect much on an electionbyelection basis . If you tell the people that with a ranked vote every vote will be equal PLUS with ranked choice they can safely vote for their favorite without splitting the vote , I think most citizens would be in favor , even if not all state governments are . If anyone could rally the people to make these changes , it would be Trump . He has the ears of the Rightleaning citizens , and has the salt of the Leftleaning citizens against the EC . Now would be the time . Promise the Left that the popular vote will rule , and the Right that everyone will receive their 1 fair vote again , with all the FREEDOM to vote for who you want most , without ending up with the person you want least . That sounds pretty American to me a fair vote for everyone , the potential beginning of the end of a subjugating 2 party system , and the general change that everyone has been asking for , but will never receive from entrenched parties . Trump would go down as one of the most importantinfluential presidents in history for that change .