3 ms·
Don't have to imagine. We're already there in large part, so that national candidates just have to appeal to a handful of voters in a handful of swing states. T
by jkestner 6y ago
Don't have to imagine. We're already there in large part, so that national candidates just have to appeal to a handful of voters in a handful of swing states. This is a good reason to abolish the Electoral College. There are millions of conservative Californians whose votes don't count under the current system. https://equalvotes.us https://equalvotes.us
- Balgair 6y agoTo point this out a bit better: There are likely to be more votes for Donny in California this year than the raw populations of Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana combined. A national popular vote would drastically shift the race to the most populous metro markets in the US: NYC (~19M), LA (~13M), Chicago (~9M), Dallas (~8M), Houston (~7M), and DC (~6M). Despite their heavy leanings to Democrats, the raw number of votes in these markets and the cost to reach a voter still makes them competitive areas. Such a shift in election method would likely move the 'center' of the US presidential political system towards issues that dominate the large metro markets. This further alienates rural voters and less populous states, making Senate policy less representative of the US voter.