Well, Donald Trump claims that he didn’t bother to campaign in California because he knew the state would go blue, but if there had been a direct popular vote, he would have campaigned there and cut into Hillary’s margin.
Hillary Clinton never campaigned in Missouri because she knew no matter how many votes she got in St. Louis and Kansas City, it wouldn’t make up for the rural vote from the rest of the state. Similarly, she didn’t spend much (if any) time in Illinois because her majority in Chicago would swamp the downstate vote.
Really, the only conclusion we can draw is that if the vote had been counted another way (direct popular, divided among Congressional districts, preferential with a runoff, whatever) the candidates would have focused their resources to maximize their chances under that system, and who knows how many votes Clinton or Trump would have gotten in a given area.
You’re talking about three metropolitan areas where the margin, somehow, magically accounts for Clinton’s edge in the popular vote. So what? Those votes don’t count anyway, right? Now suppose Clinton had swung the 75,000 vote margin in WI, MI and PA, and won the EC. Could have happened easily.
How then would you feel about the 4.5 million votes that Trump received in a single state, CA, that meant absolutely nothing at all?
Man, so many threads about the EC and I have yet to hear a cogent argument in favor of it. There is always some half-baked nonsense about “flyover” states*, and never an explanation why it’s acceptable to discriminate against, and disenfranchise, citizens based on geography.
*Also gibberish about rural states not having a voice. States are represented in Congress, and less populous states already have a leg up in the Senate.
Exactly, but the Democrats keep trotting out this “popular vote” crap.
The Presidency is based on how one does in the Electoral College period.
Its like a losing football team that won’t accept defeat because they had more offensive yards, or a basketball team that thinks it should of won because they out rebounded the winning team.
People look at a map like this and wonder why what appears to be just a small fragment of the country gets so many votes.
The answer is that’s where the people live. It doesn’t matter if they’re packed together or spread out. Half the people get half the votes. The two and a half million people that live in Nevada get the same amount of votes as the two and a half million people who live in Brooklyn, even if Nevada is fifteen hundred times bigger than Brooklyn.
This is what the country would look like if you normalized it for population. Now you don’t ask why New York City gets so many votes. Now you ask why North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming get more votes than New York City when New York City is bigger than all three of them put together.
I’m tired of people saying that if we had a popular vote that New York and California would pick the president. No they wouldn’t, PEOPLE would. New York and California wouldn’t pick anything, neither would Kansas or Florida or Wyoming. People would.
The only merit – the only possible merit – in the OP’s “small area” vs. “large area” argument would be if wildlife were able to vote. There is certainly far more wildlife in the rural midwest than there is in New York City. The trouble is, even if one accepts the merits of this argument, most of us can guess how wildlife (and nature in general) would feel about Republicans.
This makes literally zero sense. Those three area makes up less than 10% of Clinton’s votes. No, they can’t decide an election by themselves.
This is the opposite of the truth. If it was decided on popular vote, each voter in Kansas would count equally with those anywhere else. By definition.
Posts like these blow me away. I would make a comment about critical thinking skills, but it seems too low of a bar to label critical thinking.
Er, who started this thread? Whoever it was, I don’t think he or she actually read any of the responses and considered their merit.
You know, the Berlin Wall divides East and West Germany. That’s the border. Period.
ETA: the EC was a safeguard against the mob choosing an unqualified lunatic to serve as president. When the EC doesn’t reject Trump, it’s obsolescence will be proven.
It’s not as if everyone in Kansas wants the same things. Only certain people in Kansas are getting disproportionate power, at the expense of everyone else, including their very neighbors, which is utterly illogical.
No, it’s like if every football game from high school to the NFL was won based on points scored, except that when you get to the Superbowl, only offensive yards count. And when people complain about how the most important game is scored differently for some reason, the excuse is that it’s always been that way, or that the method used in every other game is somehow not appropriate in this case.
Each one of those cities has more people than some states.
Together, they have more people than many entire countries.
But they shouldnt be allowed to vote, I guess.
Is there any objective reason why it’s worse to disenfranchise Kansas than it is to disenfranchise California?
Of course it isn’t, and Trump may have been able to win the popular vote if he had campaigned differently. But what would be so terrible about candidates tailoring their campaigns to win the popular vote rather than the electoral vote?
If I live in Texas and vote Democrat, my vote doesn’t count.
It doesn’t. It’s worth nothing. The state isn’t going blue, so my vote is not worth jack shit. If I, and every other liberal in Texas left the state and moved to, say, Iowa, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, just to pull three names out of a hat, our votes would suddenly be worth a whole lot more. In fact, probably enough to swap the election results. Drastically.
But instead, they don’t count. Because all that counts is the total within the state.
Also, as a person in Kansas, you would have as much influence on national politics as you should: very little. Because Kansas, despite its surface area, has a population of 3 million. There are literally more people than that in Los Angeles. Why should your concerns be worth more than that of any other citizen?
