Why We Are A Republic, And Not A Democracy

Not at all. They'd both get ignored equally, just as they are today.

 

This is precisely where the balancing is done in this country. Not in electoral votes.

If North Dakota and North Carolina had the same electoral votes, then 715's argument might make some sense.

 

Then, you're backtracking on this post.

First you say they go to swing states with large populations, then you say they go to swing states with the largest populations (and these are not the same thing), and now you're saying they don't even necessarily go to the largest swing states.

 

Problem is power and personal agenda. 51-49 makes a state a particular color, ignoring the 49%. Electoral college or popular vote.
The time of the EC has long waned, imo, but it is what it is.
I would prefer rules that do not allow any party to control all three branches or rules requiring majorities of both parties to pass legislation, appointees, etc. party control promotes tribalism.
But heck, I might just support a test to vote. Jan 6, insurrection or fun fest

Edit

Just like the EC map of red and blue, vs a map of where the voters are. There are no votes in half the area in western states. Except during trout season

 

They don't have to have the same amount of votes. They just have to not be "large states," which is true. They are not large states.

Again, first you said swing states with large populations, which is not the same as swing states with the largest populations, and now you're saying not even necessarily swing states if they're small enough.

 

I was responding to your hypothetical California versus Iowa versus NC. Had you said ND versus SD originally, I'd have said "they won't bother."

 

Specifically addressing the scenario you presented.

Remember, you posited that the EC made small states more likely to get campaigning by presidential candidates. I still see no evidence that is or ever would be true.

 

I'll quote your quote of my quote:

That leaves SD and ND out no matter what. They don't have large populations. Even if they were swing states.

Hence my "you didn't read my second clause" part.

 

Because neither are swing states.

But in my hypothetical, let's say they're the only swing states.

If that's true, and politicians still wouldn't bother spending any time there, then you're backtracking on the assertion that politicians campaign in the swing states with the largest populations, which was already a backtrack from politicians campaign in swing states with large populations.

 

Not at all. Why do you keep saying that? Remember, I wrote "large populations." They want EVs. Period. That's how you win.

 

The Electoral College system does nothing to compel a candidate to put effort into states with small populations. It makes no sense to do so.

 

But then you said North Carolina is a swing state with the second largest population. You're moving the goalposts.

How? I just showed you. It's possible for North Dakota to be the second largest swing state. It's not the case, but it's possible. So that tells me that North Carolina being the second largest swing state (which itself is not a true statement) says nothing about North Carolina's total population size.

 

I am not. It has a large population and a lot of EVs. That's what matters.

 

Because you acted like North Carolina has a large population because they have the second largest population of the swing states, which again is not true... but even that argument is completely flawed because "large" and "largest of the swing states" are not the same thing.

 

It has about half as many Florida and New York.

It has about 40% of Texas and it has about 27% of California.

 

I argued they have a large population because ... they have a large population.

You're really twisting yourself in knots here.

 

What exactly are you even arguing at this point? Politicians care about the states that give you the most EVs. If those happen to be swing states, they will focus on the ones with more EVs. That simple.

North Carolina is #9 in total population.

This, on the other hand:

Is demonstrably untrue. They go to the states where the people are.

 

Fine, if you really want to die on the hill that North Carolina has a large population there's nothing I can say that forces you to change your mind. I just showed you how many electors they have relative to Florida, New York, Texas, and California. If that's not enough, I don't know what is.

How about this though: Is Iowa a large state?

If a Democratic presidential candidate had to choose between campaigning more in Iowa or more in California, which would be the smarter choice?

That's my point. The EC empowers small states far more than a popular vote system ever would. Do they still go to the "swing states" with the highest populations? Of course. But what system doesn't have some bias in favor of high population areas? It changes the game to attracting politicians to states most up for grabs and states up for grabs with the highest population density. Those two extra electors based on Senate representation mean a lot to the small states, which is how the electoral college is not perfectly represented by population size, it's not supposed to be. It's supposed to be based on a combination of population and state representation.

 

It's in the top 10 in total population. I'm not too worried about dying on that hill. It's quantifiable.

North Dakota, meanwhile, is #48. There's no reason for a candidate to go there under any scenario. There is no buffer or empowerment happening there. The Electoral College does nothing here.

 

I'm done.

First you said they go to swing states with large populations.

Then you said they go to swing states with the largest populations.

Then you said they sometimes don't go to swing states with the largest populations, if they're small enough.

Now you're saying they just go to the states with the most electoral votes.

You've changed your argument 4 times. I think I've been more than patient, but this isn't going anywhere.