I hadn't anticipated this somewhat odd conflation of the issue of swing states with the electoral college. That seems to be primarily a criticism from people who haven't been through many elections - California was a reliable Republican state until 1992, Texas has been reliably Republican for decades but now is a swing state etc.
Most political criticism of the electoral college comes from the idea it is non-representation: A vote in Wyoming is worth between 2.9 and 3.6 times a vote in California[1] depending on if you measure turnout of population.
A non-electoral college system will change that, but instead of it being Republican votes in Democratic strongholds that don't count (and vice-versa) it will be all the votes outside of CA, NY, IL, TX and FL. Parties will create policies that favor large, dense populate centers, and the rest of the country will be ignored.
Most political criticism of the electoral college comes from the idea it is non-representation: A vote in Wyoming is worth between 2.9 and 3.6 times a vote in California[1] depending on if you measure turnout of population.
A non-electoral college system will change that, but instead of it being Republican votes in Democratic strongholds that don't count (and vice-versa) it will be all the votes outside of CA, NY, IL, TX and FL. Parties will create policies that favor large, dense populate centers, and the rest of the country will be ignored.
[1] https://theconversation.com/whose-votes-count-the-least-in-t...