3 ms·

> No honest person who is informed about how the electoral college works thinks it’s fair. Correct. The EC is unfair by design. It was was never about fair for

> No honest person who is informed about how the electoral college works thinks it’s fair. Correct. The EC is unfair by design. It was was never about fair for voters, it was about growing and keeping the nation together. The EC and Senate both are to ensure that citizens of less populous states are heard, and without both, the nation would devolve (if you are not from one of the five most populous states) to whatever the five most populous states wanted, every time.

humanrebar 4y ago
This. We'd talk about Chicago voters instead of Nebraska voters. There are pros and cons either way, but we won't have consensus to change (a supermajority is required) any time soon. Note that more polarization is possible if the purpose and power of the states lessens. Even deep blue and deep red states have regions with different perspectives.
- LordKeren 4y ago
  … you don’t talk about Nebraska voters. Nebraska is not a swing state— there was an almost 20 point difference in 2020. All that the electoral college does is make it so the only states that matter are swing states. We talk about Pennsylvania, not Illinois, even though they have the same electoral votes count
  - indymike 4y ago
    Swing states change over time, slowly, but they change. You can't view the EC and Senate through partisan analysis - their purpose is much deeper than that. It's more about why Nebraska is willing to give up quite a bit of sovereign power to be part of the US, and not about who wins the next election.
    - LordKeren 4y ago
      It’s not partisan analysis to take issue with the statement “The person who wins the presidential election is not the person that most people voted for” I can objectively say that I have an issue with that statement regardless of the party that wins
      - indymike 4y ago
        > “The person who wins the presidential election is not the person that most people voted for” This indicates that you simply disagree with the EC, not that it is in some way a failure. The EC is not about fairness to voters, it is one of the two concessions that are made to less populous states to ensure that they would join and stay in the Union.
notahacker 4y ago
The Senate gets the less populous states heard. The EC still results in most of them being ignored. Just because its dynamics mean California also gets ignored doesn't mean the EC doesn't actually make picking up voters in small non-swing states even less important and votes in Florida even more important. The five most popular states add up to less than half the population and have very different political climates and priorities.
- the_only_law 4y ago
  Is Florida much of a swing state anymore. It seems Atlanta makes Georgia a bigger battleground than Florida which has quickly become a cultural/political center for one side in particular.
  - notahacker 4y ago
    Definitely seems to be trending Republican, but it's one the Dems will care much more about trying to pick up half a million votes in than a million votes spread across smaller states which still won't flip and wouldn't necessarily be worth as much if they did.
- indymike 4y ago
  > The Senate gets the less populous states heard. Yes. But this gives no say in selecting the head of the executive branch at all. > The EC still results in most of them being ignored. The reason that swing states even matter is the EC. Without the EC, the only thing that matters is the popular vote, and only the large cities would matter in electing the President. It's a hack that is inherently unfair to populous areas, but is the main reason joining the Union makes sense to less populated states.
  - notahacker 4y ago
    The votes of large cities matter no more than an equal number of voters in rural counties in a popular vote (and you'll hear at least as much difference between the priorities of different groups of voters in the city). With the EC, votes in most states matter even less (not only are there not many voters to appeal to, picking up extra votes there isn't going to change the EC outcome). Just because California now gets ignored doesnt mean candidates don't also care even less about Alaska or Hawaii. It's not even inherently unfair to populous areas, it's just extraordinarily skewed towards a few contestable states, mainly the large ones. A single suburb of Philadelphia and Miami matters more for a real world Presidential election campaign than most states.

humanrebar 4y ago

This. We'd talk about Chicago voters instead of Nebraska voters. There are pros and cons either way, but we won't have consensus to change (a supermajority is required) any time soon. Note that more polarization is possible if the purpose and power of the states lessens. Even deep blue and deep red states have regions with different perspectives.

LordKeren 4y ago
… you don’t talk about Nebraska voters. Nebraska is not a swing state— there was an almost 20 point difference in 2020. All that the electoral college does is make it so the only states that matter are swing states. We talk about Pennsylvania, not Illinois, even though they have the same electoral votes count
- indymike 4y ago
  Swing states change over time, slowly, but they change. You can't view the EC and Senate through partisan analysis - their purpose is much deeper than that. It's more about why Nebraska is willing to give up quite a bit of sovereign power to be part of the US, and not about who wins the next election.
  - LordKeren 4y ago
    It’s not partisan analysis to take issue with the statement “The person who wins the presidential election is not the person that most people voted for” I can objectively say that I have an issue with that statement regardless of the party that wins
    - indymike 4y ago
      > “The person who wins the presidential election is not the person that most people voted for” This indicates that you simply disagree with the EC, not that it is in some way a failure. The EC is not about fairness to voters, it is one of the two concessions that are made to less populous states to ensure that they would join and stay in the Union.

notahacker 4y ago

The Senate gets the less populous states heard. The EC still results in most of them being ignored. Just because its dynamics mean California also gets ignored doesn't mean the EC doesn't actually make picking up voters in small non-swing states even less important and votes in Florida even more important. The five most popular states add up to less than half the population and have very different political climates and priorities.

the_only_law 4y ago
Is Florida much of a swing state anymore. It seems Atlanta makes Georgia a bigger battleground than Florida which has quickly become a cultural/political center for one side in particular.
- notahacker 4y ago
  Definitely seems to be trending Republican, but it's one the Dems will care much more about trying to pick up half a million votes in than a million votes spread across smaller states which still won't flip and wouldn't necessarily be worth as much if they did.
indymike 4y ago
> The Senate gets the less populous states heard. Yes. But this gives no say in selecting the head of the executive branch at all. > The EC still results in most of them being ignored. The reason that swing states even matter is the EC. Without the EC, the only thing that matters is the popular vote, and only the large cities would matter in electing the President. It's a hack that is inherently unfair to populous areas, but is the main reason joining the Union makes sense to less populated states.
- notahacker 4y ago
  The votes of large cities matter no more than an equal number of voters in rural counties in a popular vote (and you'll hear at least as much difference between the priorities of different groups of voters in the city). With the EC, votes in most states matter even less (not only are there not many voters to appeal to, picking up extra votes there isn't going to change the EC outcome). Just because California now gets ignored doesnt mean candidates don't also care even less about Alaska or Hawaii. It's not even inherently unfair to populous areas, it's just extraordinarily skewed towards a few contestable states, mainly the large ones. A single suburb of Philadelphia and Miami matters more for a real world Presidential election campaign than most states.