3 ms·
That's the artifact of electoral college. It is frustrating that the whole country policy is dictated by several thousand votes in couple swing states.
by skolos 10y ago
That's the artifact of electoral college. It is frustrating that the whole country policy is dictated by several thousand votes in couple swing states.
- erichocean 10y ago> That's the artifact of electoral college. "Artifact" implies that this is an unexpected, or unwanted result—a bug, if you will. But the inability of just a few big states to dictate national policy to everyone is the entire purpose of the electoral college. It's entire existence is to produce this "artifact". For example, Clinton is winning the popular vote—in California, by ~3 million votes. If you exclude CA and instead look at the other 49 states (plus DC), Trump is winning the popular vote by around 1 million people (and the electoral college, too—CA or not). That's just one reason we don't have a popular vote for the presidency: one state can absolutely dominate the rest of the country—effectively making their votes irrelevant. I live and vote in CA, so while it would make my vote for president a lot more valuable to do away with the electoral college, I'd much rather let everyone else have a say, too, and keep the Republic intact—even if occasionally other states don't vote the way I'd like.
- stouset 10y agoOther states' votes aren't irrelevant without an electoral college. They're just directly proportional to their population. Why is it fair to make Californians' votes worth less than those of residents of other states, just because more people happen to live inside its borders? Perhaps we should subdivide California into hundreds of "states" to give its citizens more voting power.