The following is a thought experiment, so please do not take too much umbrage.
In the 2016 election, Trump [earned] 58,501,015 votes and Clinton [earned] 57,099,728 votes - if we exclude the votes in California for both candidates. Considering the matter on a state-by-state basis, it’s funny that California would negate the popular choice of the 49 other states. Consider further that even if we also exclude Texas’s votes, Trump still wins the popular vote in the remaining 48 states. That is how big a difference the people of California can make in a popular vote system.
I want a candidate to be made to appeal to as broad a swath of America as possible. I abhor that pretty much every GOP candidate in the 2016 primary bowed to the ethanol lobby in states like Iowa. And yet, it is one example of how candidates are made to appeal to interests in individual states. If you think the ethanol subsidies are great, this should appeal to you.
California only negates the choice of the other states cause the because of how all the other states voted. The numbers were just close enough that California could make the difference. But Trump or Clinton had been ahead of the other by enough votes, California wouldn’t make a difference.