I’m very interested in the idea of the National Popular Vote movement as a method of making political parties in the US accountable to the entire population rather than a handful of constituencies who’s importance is grossly over amplified by the geographic accident of mathematically crucial swing districts. Issues important to members of both parties in non-swing areas are functionally irrelevant in presidential politics, which is the fulcrum of national party politics. Surely, changing this equation would redefine not only the strategic calculus of the parties as we know them, but also the engagement of all voters in the vast majority of the country—which is currently ignored by both parties. There seems to be a lot of fear and apprehension about changing the way electoral college votes are allotted, but none of the arguments for maintaining the status quo take into account the fact that if every citizen’s vote was equal, regardless of party affiliation or geography, it would change not just political strategy but the issues on the table. I don’t think there is a coherent, rigorous argument for national politics to be waged by proxy in a few random swing states and districts, but that is how the system works under the current method of allocating electors.