However, it is wrong to paint the picture of a presidential race that treated all states more or less equally. It is wrong, for example, to forget about 37 states that have not been visited by Senator Obama since the beginning of September. Even though the campaign of Mr. Obama tried hard to include traditional spectator states, it did not fundamentally change the approach of presidential campaigning. Only a reform of the way the President is elected in this country can bring this change.
Supporters of the current system argue that the National Popular Vote would only shift the advantage of swing states over solid states to an advantage of heavy-populated cities over rural areas. However, the simple but crucial question should remain: Is every vote of equal importance? And in the current system this is clearly not the case, as the distribution of campaign attention among states reveals. Since the national conventions, half of the states have not been visited by any of the presidential or vice-presidential candidates. At the same time over 53 percent of the campaign events took place in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia. The ten most visited states of the presidential race of 2004 received over 60 percent of the campaign visits. And more than a third of the campaign visits went to three states: Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania.
There is a difference between a campaign strategy that involves states despite the current election system and an election system that encourages campaigns to treat every state equally. That's why the National Popular Vote Plan is so important.