4 ms·
This is true, but I’m not sure having your vote count for a decade, then not count, then count again is all that much better. Note that going in to an election,
by hyperpape 7y ago
This is true, but I’m not sure having your vote count for a decade, then not count, then count again is all that much better. Note that going in to an election, the potential battleground states are usually known.
Some states haven’t been swing states for a long time, too.
- WarDores 7y agoI'm not sure what the correct answer is. Winning a national contest is always going to be about coalition-building all said and done. Trump changed the calculus on the traditional GOP coalition (going after unions -- once considered a Democrat lock), and won states he "shouldn't" have. Coalitions line up with states in a lot of cases. If Democrats started pandering to farmers (I can see this happening), the midwest might look different. I don't see this as a "states not counting" problem as much as the issues that come up in national elections affect different populations in different ways. If there was a national popular vote, there would still be people who feel disenfranchised because the candidates don't see their chosen issues as vital to their coalition.
- pishpash 7y agoWe're witnessing a party re-alignment in real time.