Yes saying a single precinct is a bit hyperbolic but claiming that all states have an equal hand in electing a president is also nonsense. The entire presidential election is decided by a few states that are poorly representative of the country. Just look at where presidential candidates campaign: The vast majority of their time is spent in less than a dozen states, who have a total population less than that of New York and California combined, just because the race in those states is neck and neck.
I am in full support of federalism but its purpose is to strike a balance between national, regional, and local representation & interests. When the system elects a candidate who lost the popular vote by hundreds of thousands that isn't a balance, that's small states getting power they should only have in the senate. The executive branch isn't bicameral so applying federalism to it is just depriving the majority of their choice. The national and state legislatures is where our federalism belongs, not in our executive branch.
> The vast majority of their time is spent in less than a dozen states, who have a total population less than that of New York and California combined, just because the race in those states is neck and neck.
Those are the swing states, which are the most politically-balanced — this means that they are the most-centrist states. Campaigning to win them is campaigning to win the centre.
> The executive branch isn't bicameral so applying federalism to it is just depriving the majority of their choice.
Why should 50.01% get their choice and 49.99 suffer? Why not build a system which encourages centrism and attempting to appeal to all? That's the one we have.
Note that no candidate got a majority of popular votes in the election.
> The national and state legislatures is where our federalism belongs, not in our executive branch.
That makes no sense: the federal executive is the federal executive, and should be just as federalist as the rest of our federal government (hence my support for returning to state legislatures appointing electors, and getting rid of the popular vote altogether).
I am in full support of federalism but its purpose is to strike a balance between national, regional, and local representation & interests. When the system elects a candidate who lost the popular vote by hundreds of thousands that isn't a balance, that's small states getting power they should only have in the senate. The executive branch isn't bicameral so applying federalism to it is just depriving the majority of their choice. The national and state legislatures is where our federalism belongs, not in our executive branch.