If the US had a popular vote...would the EC change?

[Camaro33]

If the United States voted for president via national popular vote instead of the electoral college, would this change the modern Electoral College "safe states" or "tossups/swings"?

Consider this. Since Ohio or Florida are always in play, with the election dependent on their results, would voters be less tempted to vote in these states since their votes are now considered less meaningful? Do Republicans in New York turn out to vote? Are there demographic trends of people who stay home or vote under this condition and does it change the way states vote?

Personally, I believe it would show that states aren't as polarized as we make them out to be, but all in all, the EC result in the event of a popular vote would not change significantly.

[kohler]

Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter  in the state counts and national count.

National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in presidential elections in each state.  Now they don't matter to their candidate.
         
And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state, are wasted and don't matter to candidates. 

In 2008, voter turnout in the then 15 battleground states averaged seven points higher than in the 35 non-battleground states.

In 2012, voter turnout was 11% higher in the then 9 battleground states than in the remainder of the country.

In the 2012 presidential election, 1.3 million votes decided the winner in the ten states with the closest margins of victory.  But nearly 20 million eligible citizens in those states—Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin—are missing from the voter rolls.

Overall, these “missing voters” amount to half, and in some cases more than half, of the total votes cast for president in these states.

Analysts already conclude that only the 2016 party winner of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Nevada, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire (with 86 electoral votes among them) is not a foregone conclusion. So, if the National Popular Vote bill is not in effect, less than a handful of states will continue to dominate and determine the presidential general election. 

With National Popular Vote, presidential campaigns would poll, organize, visit, and appeal to more than 7 states. One would reasonably expect that voter turnout would rise in 80%+ of the country that is currently conceded months in advance by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns.

[kohler]

A nationwide presidential campaign of polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, with every voter equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods.  In the 4 states that accounted for over two-thirds of all general-election activity in the 2012 presidential election, rural areas, suburbs, exurbs, and cities all received attention—roughly in proportion to their population.
      
The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states, including polling, organizing, and ad spending) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

With National Popular Vote, when every voter is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren't so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.

[kohler]

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, in 2012 did not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters.  10 of the original 13 states are ignored now. 80% of  states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party  in the states, and  ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns. Candidates had no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they were safely ahead or hopelessly behind.
   
In 2012, more than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the then only ten competitive states. Two-thirds (176 of 253) of the general-election campaign events, and a similar fraction of campaign expenditures, were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa). 38 states were politically irrelevant. There are only expected to be 7 remaining swing states in 2016.

Issues of importance to non-battleground states are of so little interest to presidential candidates that they don’t even bother to poll them.

Over 87% of both Romney and Obama campaign offices were in just the then 12 swing states. The few campaign offices in the 38 remaining states were for fund-raising, volunteer phone calls, and arranging travel to battleground states.

Since World War II, a shift of a few thousand votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections
    
Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

“Battleground” states receive 7% more federal grants than “spectator” states, twice as many presidential disaster declarations, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and more No Child Left Behind law exemptions.

[kohler]

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country.   
         
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80%+ of the states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
               
The National Popular Vote bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538. 
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.
               
The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
               
http://www.NationalPopularVote.com      

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

The concept of "swing states" and "safe states" would no longer matter in the presidential race, so in a way, yes.

[zorkpolitics]

A National Popular vote would radically change Presidential campaigns. 

Campaigning will ignore the swing states and focus on the "safe" or base states.  The campaigns will no longer be focused on winning the swing voters, instead the campaigns will be focused on each parties ideological base.  After all why spend money in a swing state where, when all is said and done, your side will only net a few thousand votes?  Instead the money will flow into the safe states to try and drive up the margin of victory to the max.  CA, NY and IL and their urban issues will be the focus for the Democrats campaign where they will try to register every person they can and drag them to the polls.  The Republicans will focus on the south hoping to get every reluctant voter to the polls.
 
The net effect will be a highly combative, angry campaign in which each side vilifies the other and uses fear-mongering to try and drive turnout of "their" voters.  Politicians that can effectively gin up their base will be the winners in each party.

Voter fraud will skyrocket as each party works to get as many people (including non-citizen, ineligible, or dead) registered and then be sure they are counted as "voted".  NJ and Chicago style voting day  "walking around cash" will flow like never before to pay people to vote. 

Overall the campaigns will likely be worse than our current swing state focused, swing voter focused campaigns.