Huh? You just prefer that 3 other states, let's say Iowa, Ohio, and Michigan, perhaps, do the choosing?
You're simply defending the preference of certain states over others, for some reason that you certainly aren't willing to disclose. And, if you're going to defend that one handful of states is more important in choosing a national administration over another handful of states, why do you specifically choose the handful of states that represent some exponentially tiny fraction of people and votes and, concurrently, a relatively meaningless representation of national GDP compared to the nasty handful of states that you reject?
Where is the logic in this? Clearly you aren't arguing from a quantitative position of fairness, but from something else. What is it?