>>But you can make the argument in the opposite direction. Only about 12 states mattered in this election, so the campaigns visited them over and over. Voters in California and New York and Texas and Wyoming and ... didn't get to have an impact.

Actually all states matter, even if taken for granted like CA or TX. Meanwhile first world voters accept that there's a process and that while it may not be perfect, it has been associated with generations of prosperity in the good old US of A.

>>As for why California should count for a lot more, how about because a lot more people live there? As of the 2010 census, the population of CA was over 39 million. That's more than the total of the smallest 20 states plus DC.

In that case China and India ought to control the UN, disguising self-serving motions as the will of the entire planet because that's what "fair" means.

No thanks. It's a well-established principle that states have individual needs and are entitled to a guaranteed say, even if it's one of those flyover sinking Pacific atolls with only a few thousand people left.

>>As for voter turnout, this page (http://www.electproject.org/2016g) seems to indicate that turnout is not particularly higher in swing states or lower in those where the result is a foregone conclusion.

At first glance Minnesota seems to have a very healthy (highest) voter turnout, closely followed by Wisconsin. Pennsylvania looks like middle of the pack, but I can't remember- did Trump visit PA close to the election?