But his gist is that, in a state-districted electoral system like ours, each vote has a greater chance of tipping the state election, which, in turn, has a greater chance of tipping the national election, than if we voted in one giant national district. A typical state election is much closer than a national one. So the chance that a person's or a group's vote would tip Iowa's election is far greater than the chance of their tipping a national election. That makes candidates want those votes. In a pool of a hundred million voters, the chance that your vote will turn the election is practically zero.
Critics point to the issue of equality.
The inherent problem in anything save direct election is that some members of the voting pool, because of the way electoral votes are distributed, end up with more effective voice than others in the pool. Natapoff disputes this, but is quick to point out that equality alone is not always in the voters favor ' it has arguably produced Hitler's chancellorship and Milosevic's Serbia, where the majorities can abuse minorities at will. What protects us from this in our country is that voting power is spread thickly throughout the country, state by state, maximizing each voter's individual power. They have to harvest them in every locality, every state, otherwise their chances of winning should be punished badly'. So they can't ignore Mormons in Idaho, and they can't ignore farmers in Massachusetts even though those are minorities.