5 ms·
Right, but for all systems that isn't directly proportionate to popular vote (that means no geographic grouping of representatives), that's true. Parliamentary
by icegreentea2 6y ago
Right, but for all systems that isn't directly proportionate to popular vote (that means no geographic grouping of representatives), that's true. Parliamentary systems, and both American house of representatives suffer from this failure mode - it's not particular unique to the American presidential election.
Finally, I would not defend the EC as a particularly good system, and certainly from a campaigner's standpoint, its particularly complex to navigate. But from an individual voter's standpoint, the mental model is simple. If you are in a swing state, you especially should vote. Parliamentary systems have concepts of "crucial ridings", which are quite similar.
- Gwypaas 6y agoYou will never get it completely right but at least do something with a true grounding in math aiming for the most precise outcome. Every vote, in every election, should count for something and not only be a participation point on all other levels than local because you live in a gerrymandered district in Chicago. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster/Sainte-Lagu%C3%AB_method https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster/Sainte-Lagu%C3%AB_me...
- AmericanChopper 6y agoEvery vote in every election does count. The current selection of states that vote so consistently for one party is a trend that goes all the way back to... Bill Clinton’s election. It’s not anomalous in history at all, and you have no reason to believe that in the future California wouldn’t go back to being a sure bet for Republicans, and Texas a sure bet for Democrats. If a person thinks their vote doesn’t count because of the state they live in, they haven’t been failed by the electoral college, they’ve been failed by their own ignorance of history.