Yes they are. Don't try to deny it. Obama let them. About 6 million illegal immigrants voted in 2012, and with the previous election having record highs in voter turnout in every category, almost twice as many illegals came to the polls to vote. They're not even checking people for citizenship.
I've been against the electoral college since I first read about it as a child. I've heard all the arguments for it, and none of them have impressed me. I would still be against it even if Hillary had won the electoral college and Trump had won the popular vote.
Right, because every single person in California has the same exact opinions and looks for the same exact things in a candidate.
People should decide who the president is, not states. If we went by the popular vote presidents would look to impress a majority of voters, not voters from certain states. It wouldn't matter where those votes came from.
In our current system candidates only try to impress voters from swing states. And at that they campaign primarily in urban areas (so so much for the much floated theory that the electoral college balances consideration for urban and rural areas). Every campaign stop in Michigan by either Hillary or Trump was in Grand Rapids or the Detroit metropolitan area. If you want candidates to care about the entire country in their campaigns and as president you should have a popular vote system.
Care about the entire country? Lol. Unless they're only in it for themselves, I guarantee you they'll care about the entire country. And thanks for twisting my words, I never said all Californians have the same exact opinions/political preferences. But you know California is going to go blue by a landslide for decades to come. The only reason she is ahead in the popular vote is because she won CA by about 4 million votes. Outside of CA, she's a big time popular vote loser. Trump is up by about 2 million outside of California. Translation: If the popular vote decided the winner, CA would've dictated the whole election for everybody else. And without the electoral college, California, Texas, New York, and Florida would control about 1/3 of the voting. That's four states, with a hell of a lot of power over the other 46. So if the popular vote determined the winner, candidates would only go to those states, leaving Virginia, North Carolina, etc. out of the picture.
@ Politics 2016
They would go where the data suggests to go, as they do now, just that they would be going for the popular vote, and so which state it is in wouldn't be important. You don't magically connect with voters throughout a state just by being in that state. You have to be in their town or at least very close to it, except for communication that occurs on the phone, television or the internet but then that will reach everybody with TV, internet, and phone access regardless of how far away they are. And as for the most important parts of a campaign i.e. canvassing you have to coordinate the effort at least within driving distance. So campaigning in El Paso isn't going to do anything extra to reach voters in Dallas. But it may help reach out to people in Las Cruces since it's just a short drive away in New Mexico.
What they would do is look for the more populated parts of places where voters are more likely to be undecided either about who they are voting for or whether or not to turnout at all (if the latter then only if the voters they would encourage to turn out might vote for their candidate). That is essentially what candidates do now, except that they only bother campaigning there if it's in a swing state. In a popular vote system whether or not a state fits the conditions they look for would be less important, they would focus more on areas without regard for whether they match the rest of the state or whether the areas cross state borders.
No matter whether we have an electoral college or a popular vote system the data is going to send the candidates to some places more than others. But it's worse with the electoral college since then they don't need to campaign in states they know are safely in their camp or their opponent's. What I think would be even better than a popular vote system would be a popular vote ranked choice system. With ranked choice candidates would have an incentive to appeal to a broader section of the population everywhere, since winning would require them to be ranked highly even by voters who mark someone else as number one. Of course even then data will send candidates to some places more than others. But they would need to make a much broader appeal and avoid negative campaigning. And voters would have more choices as third party candidates and independents would have a real chance of victory with no "spoiling the ballot" concerns. The winners would be likely to have views which would tend to look like a compromise between the other candidates, since then you would be more likely to get ranked highly by other candidates' voters.