Yes the fact that areas with thousands of square miles with practically nobody in them lean republican is very insightful.
Less voice than what? Less than they have now? Sure. Equal is less than they have now. Of course, that is in theory. In practice, they would have more unless they happen to live in about 10 states.
As in, they would rarely win going forward. As cited above. Cities are growing. Rural areas are shrinking. If your vote can never lead to a victory or to your needs being heard, then you do not have a voice. Maybe I am wrong, but I think this season was the anomaly going forward. The popular vote hasnt been kind to rural red voters. So the EC keeps their voices relevant.
So this is affirmative action for Republicans? And in order to get it, you are making sure that the vast majority of Americans don't have a voice, as neither campaign tries to hear their voices. How many Presidential candidates are showing up in Louisiana to address their issues, for example, during the general election campaign?
Who cares if they show up to "address" anything? You are voting for what they will do In Washington, not if they make vague promises on some tarmac or middle school gym in Lake Charles. A farmer (for instance) knows what his needs are and can find out a candidates positions. He doesnt need to see him live at a pep rally.
Maybe the candidate showing up in a state to learn about its population's unique needs matters. Hard to believe you would eschew the importance of showing up. Being present is one of the most important marks of a leader, right President Sasse?
The pep rally is symbolic. Let's say that a farmer near Lake Charles wants to talk about water mitigation issues as it relates to his farm. Why would either candidate care at all what he has to say on that topic? The Republican will easily win Louisiana with or without his support. The Democrat will lose Louisiana with or without his support. I thought you wanted representation.
But that isn't what they do Davis. C'mon. They land with a prepared speech. Give It, and get right back on the plane. I mean it's not like the field questions from the audience.
Wait, what? What does this mean - "leaving the farmer never heard?" A farmer would get just as much representation with their Presidential vote as would a plumber. Or an accountant. Should the state of Wyoming actually get double the EC votes it has now, because otherwise we are "leaving the cowboy never heard" ? Should the state of Utah get more EC votes in order to ensure that Mormons are "heard"? Perhaps the states of Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia, etc., should get increased representation in the EC in order to balance out that Black People are heard. Or do we only balance out "being heard" with increased EC representation by professional occupation and livelihood? (farmers) We could spend eons on that. You're just repeating an argument that seems to have been accepted by virtue of repetition. Not because it makes any sense. One person, one vote. One equal vote.
The farmer is never heard now. You are assuming that the farmer simply wants a Republican. If both the Democrat and the Republican have to compete for the farmer and every other person, he is actually heard by both parties, unlike now where he is ignored by both parties. Both parties will actually care about who he votes for and might seek to win his vote, unlike now. As it is now, Republicans don't care about appealing to people. But when they care about appealing to people, they can win elections, same as Democrats. Look at Governor races. There is a Republican governor in Vermont. There has recently been a Republican governor in Massachusetts and Maryland. There is currently a Democratic governor in Kansas and, recently, there was one in Louisiana. Perhaps the answer to Republicans not being appealing to a group of people isn't to rig the system in their favor but to make them be more appealing. Seems like we have reached the "soft bigotry of low expectations" notion here.
The interesting part of this is how you assume that changing the system doesn't change how people act. Perhaps the reason nobody listens now is because only about 200k people (generously) spread across 8-10 states actually matter. Over 300 million people (about half of whom are voters) are ignored by both parties.
In the current system, the R who lives in Mass or the D who lives in OK de facto, has no real vote for POTUS. That's because there was no way a R will carry Mass, or a D will carry OK in 2024. And because both parties know this, both parties ignore these states and all the residents that live there during the campaign. Going to popular vote, then the D in OK or the R in Mass will have the same voter strength as everyone else. 1 person, 1 vote. If this means the Rs will struggle to win over the majority of the country, then maybe they need to rethink their policies and/or candidates? Because under current system, the leader could be someone the majority of the country disagrees with.
No the repetition comes from the anti EC crowd who thinks we live in a "one person one vote" equal democracy. Your vote selects electors. Electors that represent you in a way that would be Ignored if NYC and LA told everyone else what to do. Your issue is with the FF's, not me.
Funny how only people on the left say this because they know they would benefit from this system. (Generally) The MAJORITY of folks in Mass would be represented by their electors. The MAJORITY in Oklahoma are represented by their electors. It's brilliant and has worked just fine for 237 years. Desire to change it is a power grab.
We certainly don't think that. Quite the opposite. I'd bet you would get very mad at somebody trying to take away your right to an equal vote for Senator, Governor, or any other office. I doubt you would frame it in even vaguely that same way. Once again, cities don't vote. People do. There is an order of magnitude more voters in the country than exist in those cities combined. No, the issue is with you. The founding fathers constructed many systems that didn't age well. You want to give up your right to vote for Senators? Do you want black people to be 3/5 of a person in terms of representation? No, of course not. But people had the courage to look at those systems and realize that they were wrong or not suited to the environment of their times. Same as the EC. Trying to pawn it off on a bunch of dead people (who advocated for regular changes to the system, it should be noted) is just ducking the responsibility that we have today to make a system that works. Final point: it is fascinating how the people who claim to hate the choices given to them to match the system so much also advocate for the system that pretty much guarantees those sorts of choices in the future. The parties have optimized the EC. These are the choices you will get going forward. Sound good to you?
Yes, it is working great. How did you enjoy this election and the last? Do you feel like it produced terrific candidates for the office? Americans are super satisfied with the performance of their government and how represented they feel by it, right?
The majority of the state will vote for whom they wish, but states and cities don't vote. People do. And the R in Mass or D in OK are disenfranchised when it comes to voting for POTUS. If the R in Mass or D in OK don't vote, will it make any difference? No, because their vote is meaningless anyway. And because their vote is meaningless, why would candidates even reach out to them? No matter how hard a R candidate hit Mass, or a D candidate OK, they aren't going to win the state. So any votes they may earn from campaigning would be a complete and total waste. If, for example, Harris could have gone to OK and flipped 200,000 votes from R to D, it wouldn't have meant a thing, because Trump won the state by over 500k votes. So, why spend a dime or a second in OK? Similar, in Mass, Harris won by over 800k votes. But make the POTUS vote popular, then every vote Harris can steal in OK, or Trump can gain in Mass makes a difference.
