That's not how you compare per capita voting power. It's well known that the most populous states have less voting power per capita, because you need to compare number of voters to number of electoral votes.
I brought that all up in my original post, which is why I'm confused here. I said people who were calling Trump's election illegitimate were being idiots about it when someone else brought up his complaints about the EC and how that did make Trump's victory not a legitimate victory. It was a very close election but perfectly legitimate. Not only that, but the Great Lakes rust belt states playing a key role in the outcome makes perfect sense considering how they have largely been abandoned by everything good that has happened in this country for the last 30, 40, 50 years.
and yet the "swing" quarter of the country in reality matters more to the election than the biggest states (excepting Florida) and the smallest states.
The states I listed round out the top 10 in population, and Florida at #3 is a per-election contender for most important state. As for the smallest states, who cares? They already get proportionally more power according to slashdot posts.
(1) I think the system made more sense when the Constitution was ratified than it does today, with the federal government much more powerful today the reason for splitting things along state lines makes less sense
I disagree completely, but whatever. I find it hard to believe you can contemptuously look down on rural, out-of-state voters while simultaneously clamoring for a federal election or stronger federal powers. Every so often I read about state politics from other states and I often come away thanking god that they have no influence over my state government.
(2) I live in a large state and am unhappy that my vote proportionally counts for less.
This is where you're wrong: your vote counts for the ~15 or so EV that your state is apportioned. That is more influential and more powerful than any smaller states, no matter the per capita difference. There is no federal election, there is no national popular vote. It's a TV fabrication.
Trying to make reality fit to your imagination is working backwards, here, and comparing your vote within your state to another person's vote in another state is comparing apples to oranges, or your dollar purchasing power to their dollar purchasing power. A national vote tally would only simplify away people's opinions and concerns, not amplify them as you seem to think it would, thus diluting both your voting power and your actual enfranchisement. There's basically no realistic scenario where you would come out with more influence than you have under the EC.
Just take another look at this election: Clinton focused heavily on some swing states, but she also catered to progressive ideals that are highly popular in the states she dominated but which didn't resonate at all with millions of Midwesterners, even though the EC supposedly suppresses the influence of non-swing states! Not only that, but she basically ignored Wisconsin, choosing not to spend much resources or any time there, taking it for granted as a gimme. If the EC suppresses gimme states in favor of swing states, how did Wisconsin end up being one of the most important votes? Turns out their vote, which should have been marginalized and not mattered as much according to this anti-EC hypothetical, ended up mattering more in reality.
If you live in a high population state which is a gimme for your party, then your vote already matters: you are already being catered to. If you live in a high population state which is a gimme for the opposite party, then your vote already matters: the threat of any kind of swing turns your "ignored", but actually important, EVs into supremely important swing state EVs. If you live in a low population state, you generally don't get these benefits, since a low pop swing state has minimal impact, but you are already over-represented in government, so who cares?
