You seem to be confused.

During the primary election, which is not what this post was about, states don't all vote on the same date.

During the general election, which IS what this post was about, states all vote on the same date. But, due to the electoral college awarding all-or-nothing electoral totals for a simple majority, any state whose population is far enough from center to assure a majority for one side is considered "safe" and has no impact on the election game.

The first reason that we wouldn't end up with "the Hunger Games" if we allowed a popular vote for President is that we still have a Bill of Rights which protects any majority short of 75% from imposing that kind post-apocalyptic fascist government on anyone. Seriously, get real.

The second reason is that the Senate still awards two representatives per state, vastly increasing the electoral power of rural states beyond their population weight.

And third, you may notice that I never said anything about a straight popular vote. You are presenting a false choice. It is obvious that we could vastly improve our current system by awarding proportional votes per state. For example, winning California with 70% should award only 70% of California's votes, and the other 29% to the Republican, and the other 1% or whatever to the Green party. Winning Florida with 50.01% should award 50.01% of the votes. In this way, we could maintain the existing electoral balance of rural/urban populations, but also eliminate the "game" aspect of the election and turn it into more of an indication of public opinion and the will of the people.

It could easily be argued that eliminating the electoral college altogether could have a negative impact on the rural backbone of America's economy. But, all I said is that the way the system is set up now is a game that makes us extremely vulnerable to manipulation of marginal populations in marginal states. We can fix that problem in a variety of ways, not limited to a straight popular vote. Try to be a little more creative.