I just don't agree with one vote having more value than another. And that's what happens now because the number of electoral votes that a state is given isn't directly proportional to population. Take Alaska and Michigan for example. Alaska had 3 electoral votes with a population of 686,293, for an average of 228,764 voters per elector. Michigan had 17 votes with 10,003,422 voters, for an average of 588,436. So an individual vote in Alaska had over twice the impact as a vote in Michigan.
And if we're going back to the founding fathers, it was originally set up that the vast majority of states would just let legislatures pick whoever they want. States didn't all start using popular vote until after the civil war. So it's already been bastardized.
And then, what's the point anyway? Is there going to be any real impact once an election is all said and done? Is Alaska going to benefit in any way since Trump got their 3 electoral votes? Sure, a small state may get more stump speeches and political ads, but that's more a negative than anything. The psychological gains of residents in a few particular swing states feeling they are important are at least equaled out by the California scenario that monster points out. And the only real outcome is that some people have more say than others, when the original intention was that the general populous shouldn't really have a direct say at all.
