4 ms·

"the entire US being dominated by LA and NYC as a good thing either" This is a ridiculous strawman. One person one vote is a good thing, and LA and NYC do not

by jibalt 4y ago

"the entire US being dominated by LA and NYC as a good thing either" This is a ridiculous strawman. One person one vote is a good thing, and LA and NYC do not nearly have a majority of the population ... but if they did, then political outcomes should indeed by dominated by the majority vote.

paulgb 4y ago
In (at least) every election since 2000, Democrats in NY and California have been weighted more heavily than they would be under popular vote. Democrats only need %50 + 1 votes in each state to win every electoral college vote in that state, including the ones allocated to those states because of the republican voters who live there. If you do the math, this effect outweighs the slightly lower per capita number of electoral votes.
- jibalt 4y ago
  I've done the math; this is false.
  - paulgb 4y ago
    In 2016, between NY and CA, Democrats got 13,309,912 votes out of a total of 136,669,276, or 9.74% of the popular vote. Because of winning NY and CA, they got 84/538 electoral votes, or 15.61%. Technically, you also need to figure in the fact that by winning NY and CA it also means that some Republican votes in that popular vote denominator are also removed, so it gets a bit more complicated, but here's the full math if you want to check it. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1haVZVC3iYBOMwCO2ZZia2CwpGBYdEAoF_y05wepWzOE/edit#gid=0 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1haVZVC3iYBOMwCO2ZZia...
    - bombcar 4y ago
      More importantly, political operatives on both sides know how to predict election-related action based on our current system. Nobody knows how to predict it based on another system, so they're all conservative as in wanting to keep the status quo. If the voting system changed, there's no telling how many people would start or stop voting based on the new rules.
humanrebar 4y ago
You're ignoring that it's already easier to campaign in higher density areas. Each urban voter is already easier to reach (knock on doors, have BBQs, bus to polls, etc.).

by jibalt 4y ago

paulgb 4y ago

In (at least) every election since 2000, Democrats in NY and California have been weighted more heavily than they would be under popular vote. Democrats only need %50 + 1 votes in each state to win every electoral college vote in that state, including the ones allocated to those states because of the republican voters who live there. If you do the math, this effect outweighs the slightly lower per capita number of electoral votes.

jibalt 4y ago
I've done the math; this is false.
- paulgb 4y ago
  In 2016, between NY and CA, Democrats got 13,309,912 votes out of a total of 136,669,276, or 9.74% of the popular vote. Because of winning NY and CA, they got 84/538 electoral votes, or 15.61%. Technically, you also need to figure in the fact that by winning NY and CA it also means that some Republican votes in that popular vote denominator are also removed, so it gets a bit more complicated, but here's the full math if you want to check it. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1haVZVC3iYBOMwCO2ZZia2CwpGBYdEAoF_y05wepWzOE/edit#gid=0 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1haVZVC3iYBOMwCO2ZZia...
  - bombcar 4y ago
    More importantly, political operatives on both sides know how to predict election-related action based on our current system. Nobody knows how to predict it based on another system, so they're all conservative as in wanting to keep the status quo. If the voting system changed, there's no telling how many people would start or stop voting based on the new rules.

humanrebar 4y ago

You're ignoring that it's already easier to campaign in higher density areas. Each urban voter is already easier to reach (knock on doors, have BBQs, bus to polls, etc.).