Argument: Abolishing the electoral candidates will lead to candidates only visiting California, Texas, Florida, and New York
Math shows how wrong that is.
A candidate could visit only these for states, but they'll be abolished.
Let's use the 2016 election numbers and assume only two candidates run
137,053,916 voted, so to reach a majority you would need 68,526,959, or 50% plus one. So, how many states do you need to get there?
So, you win the top ten states
California - 8,753,788
Texas - 4,685,047
Florida - 4,617,886
New York - 4,547,562
Illinois - 3,090,729
Pennsylvania - 2,970,733
Ohio - 2,841,005
Georgia - 2,089,104
North Carolina - 2,362,632
Michigan - 2,279,543
All together that's 38,238,029 votes which doesn't look like enough :/
Let's go with the biggest 20 states then.
New Jersey - 2,148,278
Virginia - 1,981,473
Washington - 1,742,718
Arizona - 1,252,401
Massachusetts - 1,964,768
Tennessee - 1,522,925
Indiana - 1,557,286
Missouri - 1,594,511
Maryland - 1,677,928
Wisconsin - 1,405,284
All together that is 55,085,601, which is close but still not enough.
Colorado - 1,338,870
Minnesota - 1,367,716
South Carolina - 1,155,389
Alabama - 1,318,255
Louisiana - 1,178,638
Kentucky - 1,202,971
Oregon - 1,002,106
Oklahoma - 949,136
Connecticut - 897,572
Iowa - 800,983
66,297,237 votes WHICH IS CLOSE
Utah - 515,211
Mississippi - 700,714
Arkansas - 684,782
Nevada - 539,260
Winning the top 34 states in the country gets you to 68,737,204 votes, or just over half and finally you win.
I'd also like to mention that it is incredibly unlikely that all of these states would vote for the same person, so it might be even more small states you have to pay attention to.