4 ms·
>This is twice in recent memory that the majority of the United States was overruled by the minority. Which means nothing because they were not playing a popul
by basch 10y ago
>This is twice in recent memory that the majority of the United States was overruled by the minority.
Which means nothing because they were not playing a popular vote contest. We will never know who would have won, on that day, in a pure popular vote contest.
Winning the popular vote and losing the contest means you miscalculated, and misprovisioned your campaign resources, focusing too heavily on areas you already won.
- threatofrain 10y agoThe name of the game that's being played is gerrymandering.
- basch 10y agoHow often do state borders change? How frequently do counties switch states?
- serge2k 10y agoThe problem is that this hasn't been a problem since the late 1800s. It's only in the last few elections that the combination of people moving to cities, polarization of most states, and capping the house have created a situation where you can actually lose the popular vote and still win the presidency (it's always been possible, but it didn't happen for over 100 years for good reason).
- basch 10y agothe electoral college exists to prevent the popular vote from mattering.
- serge2k 10y agoIt also exists to give slave states power and to make the choice of president up to the electors but we don't use it for either of those purposes nowadays. Plus, the number of representatives has been capped since the early 1900s. That serves to take things further away from even.
- basch 10y ago>make the choice of president up to the electors which maybe they should have. >representatives has been capped which should be fixed.