If they do they are denying the rights of full political participation to less populated states -- which is exactly why the electoral college was created in the first place.
Obviously, I disagree.
I do not believe liberals in Wyoming have full participation in the electoral process. Their vote is completely meaningless. Same for the voters of any state that is solidly one way or the other.
In 1798, there were 69 EC votes. The largest state had 10, the smallest 3. Today, the largest has 55, the smallest still have 3. It is far more important to win California than to win Wyoming, Delaware and Vermont. Montana...North Dakota are also states that have little concern to Presidential candidates, as they tend to vote as a monolith and they have just 3 votes.
The fear you express, loss of full political participation, is best shown by the power of the large states in the EC. If Texas were to join CA and NY as a block...a candidate is nearly halfway home. Add Florida and the task is nearly impossible.
The 10 largest population states...
CA-55
TX-38
NY-29
FL-29
IL-20
PA-20
OH-18
MI-16
GA-16
NC-15
====
256
270 in the number...so the top 10, as per today's census, is just 14 votes short. There will be some adjustments to the next allotment as population continues to shift south, but why go to 30 small states with a record for voting for your opposition? Those 3 in Wyoming simply do not matter to me and they will not matter to most candidates. Perhaps
a stop...if it's convenient.
Dems have run strong in most of those states lately, TX and GA the exceptions. If population shifts turn those 2 into the D column...you'll never see a Republican President again. They could win 38 states and 55% of the vote...and lose.
In addition, the EC vote indicates a landslide for Obama. The popular vote total, and you argue thusly, a much tighter race. So...which was it? And which really gives a
person...not a State...but a person...full participation in the process?