3 ms·

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 r

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.