[I appear to be too stupid to figure out how to respond to your response, so I am putting a response here.]

Swing states are microcosms, and together they are a microcosm. Swing states cannot be won by parochial pandering. Pennsylvania, for example, is widely described as coastal Philadelphia at one end, midwest Pittsburgh at the other, and Alabama in the middle. What skewing does that invite?

In contrast, anything approaching popular voting for President favors urban interests. I prefer that heterogeneous swing states rather than homogeneous population centers pick the President. Given three wolves and two lambs, a popular vote is not a sustainable model for setting the dinner menu.

IMHO, Trump was nominated because he divided and conquered, and he was elected because the GOP made a mess of the government and then had the chutzpah to blame Obama, who did not have the skills to put the blame where it belonged.