4 ms·

I don't actually know what you're arguing for so I'm not going to engage any of your points. Power is distributed according to a set of rules spelled out in the

I don't actually know what you're arguing for so I'm not going to engage any of your points. Power is distributed according to a set of rules spelled out in the Constitution, so I have no idea what you're talking about with California being so important or whatever. I'm just making fun of the argument that the voter landscape looks different if we omit state X. No shit. Omit Texas and you get a different picture. Omit new York and you get another picture still. This kind of argument is the political equivalent of p-hacking.

classicsnoot 7y ago
The realities of Winner Take All is that the US regularly omits wide swathes of people from the vote. Anyone that votes republican in New Jersey or California is effectively removed from the equation. Stating that power is distributed based on the constitution is naive, given what the constitution says taken in context with how things are. Omit Iowa and/or North Dakota and it doesn't change all that much. Both sides of this same argument are precisely the point of the Electoral College. It handicaps high density populations and skews toward rural areas. It is electoral affirmative action.
- helen___keller 7y ago
  Yes, that is how the electoral college in FPTP works. What's your point?
- trehalose 7y ago
  > Anyone that votes republican in New Jersey or California is effectively removed from the equation. Their votes would count as much as anyone else's if the presidency were decided by popular vote. Why should all the Republicans in these blue states be censored by the Electoral College when electing the president? You said earlier that every Californian's vote should be lesser than everyone's vote in smaller and redder states, right? But this censoring of Republicans is a direct consequence of this affirmative action. And what happens, with the Electoral College in place, if someday the Democrats gain majority in some small states with amplified voting power? The USA would become a one-party state.

classicsnoot 7y ago

The realities of Winner Take All is that the US regularly omits wide swathes of people from the vote. Anyone that votes republican in New Jersey or California is effectively removed from the equation. Stating that power is distributed based on the constitution is naive, given what the constitution says taken in context with how things are. Omit Iowa and/or North Dakota and it doesn't change all that much. Both sides of this same argument are precisely the point of the Electoral College. It handicaps high density populations and skews toward rural areas. It is electoral affirmative action.

helen___keller 7y ago
Yes, that is how the electoral college in FPTP works. What's your point?
trehalose 7y ago
> Anyone that votes republican in New Jersey or California is effectively removed from the equation. Their votes would count as much as anyone else's if the presidency were decided by popular vote. Why should all the Republicans in these blue states be censored by the Electoral College when electing the president? You said earlier that every Californian's vote should be lesser than everyone's vote in smaller and redder states, right? But this censoring of Republicans is a direct consequence of this affirmative action. And what happens, with the Electoral College in place, if someday the Democrats gain majority in some small states with amplified voting power? The USA would become a one-party state.