this is a common belief. it is baseless. 1/n https://twitter.com/HeinleinFan95/status/1301562956187009027

it's true that candidates would likely invest much of their campaigning effort in cities, since those are high density areas and therefore yield the best RoI, but this is already the case! almost 100% of campaign stops in 2016 were in large cities in swing states. 2/n

under a straight popular vote, there'd be an incentive to campaign in major cities throughout the country. this would include NYC and LA but also smaller urban areas. when was the last time you heard of a presidential candidate campaigning in jackson, mississippi? 3/n

the simple fact, ultimately, is that under a popular vote, it really doesn't matter where your support comes from. elections would be won with a coalition of rural and urban votes. there's also no real evidence that the EC favors rural interests: https://twitter.com/raylehmann/status/1300128253332553728 4/n

the real issue is accountability. the EC makes candidates most accountable to voters in swing states, so there is a perverse incentive to craft policy that targets swing states, since those have the best RoI. this is observable and measurable. see: https://twitter.com/koaleszenz/status/1243612232455520259 5/n

this may seem to contradict the claim above about cities: one must distinguish between return on policy/political investment and return on investment of campaign resources. 6/n

in general, systems that make politicians more accountable to small parts of their constituency incentivize rent-seeking and disincentivize good governance. this is just one of many reasons the EC is a stupid, indefensible system. n/n