4 ms·

This is correct and Trump said that himself in 2016. According to him, he would spend a lot more time and money campaigning in California and New York instead o

This is correct and Trump said that himself in 2016. According to him, he would spend a lot more time and money campaigning in California and New York instead of battleground states if the system was different. And we would then see the very issue the electoral college tries to fix: small states wouldn't matter. It would be a lot more efficient in terms of vote acquisition to put in place policies benefitting Los Angeles than Green Bay, WI. Los Angeles is already extremely powerful as it is; the electoral college shifts some power away from huge cities.

azemetre 2y ago
Small states already don’t matter, with EC only “battleground” states matter; which feels way way worse. We also already have weird dynamics when it comes to policy. More people are likely employed by Wendy’s than all the coal workers, but something tells me that coal workers are given way more policy proposals to help them than fast food workers.
- throwaway48476 2y ago
  Any state with a near 50/50 vote can become a "battleground" state. Only states with one party autocratic rule lose out.
  - azemetre 2y ago
    Not if you go by popular vote, not necessarily at least. There are millions of voters for the other political parties in say California, Texas, New York, Florida; none of these voters will get their voice heard because of how they typically vote (CA going blue, Texas going red). Popular vote ensures that all votes matter, not just whatever happens to be a battle ground state which change every 10 years or so. BTW saying that one party having a trifecta of governance as autocratic is fucking moronic and not accurate. Words have meaning, lets not diminish them because you're upset people don't vote how you want.
    - leereeves 2y ago
      Do you truly believe it would be preferable, if one party consistently wins 51% of the vote, and the other wins 49%, to have one party permanently in power? That (51% of votes translating into 100% of power) is certainly not fair either. One thing the current system does surprising well is ensure that power remains divided over the long term.
      - azemetre 2y ago
        Only if you define power as the length of a single human lifespan and not something that continues on when you exit our plane of existence. The US has gone through dozens of major political and regional political parties over the last 200 years. Acting like this is ossified is just demonstrably false. It sounds like you are more upset about the first-past-the-post voting system and that I agree with you.
        throwaway48476 2y ago
        First past the post creates the two party system. The multi party parliamentary systems give far more power to the party leader to the extent that all tweets by liberal party members in Canada have to be approved by the leaders office. So instead of a MP that represents a constituency it ends up with only ~5 leaders that are allowed independent opinions.
    - throwaway48476 2y ago
      >Words have meaning, lets not diminish them because you're upset people don't vote how you want. I don't know how you twisted my words in your mind to insinuate I just want 'them' to vote for 'my' team. Governments that are dominated by one party, whether it be north korea, russia, or California tend to ossify and are controlled by party apparatchiks instead of democratically elected politicians. When there are multiple parties in close competition all parties are forced to be more responsive to the electorate.
      - azemetre 2y ago
yongjik 2y ago
Only if we're stuck in the 18th century technology and a presidential candidate has to physically visit each small town to talk to its people. In that case, yes, small states wouldn't matter because no candidate will have time to visit Omaha or Boise. But thankfully we're in the 21st century: a candidate can mail flyers and buy youtube ads with policies tailored for those perennial "red" states. Under the current system it makes zero difference, so nobody bothers, and they stay forgotten. Under popular vote, every citizen who votes for you in Omaha, NE is as good as another citizen in Philadelphia, PA.

azemetre 2y ago

Small states already don’t matter, with EC only “battleground” states matter; which feels way way worse. We also already have weird dynamics when it comes to policy. More people are likely employed by Wendy’s than all the coal workers, but something tells me that coal workers are given way more policy proposals to help them than fast food workers.

throwaway48476 2y ago
Any state with a near 50/50 vote can become a "battleground" state. Only states with one party autocratic rule lose out.
- azemetre 2y ago
  Not if you go by popular vote, not necessarily at least. There are millions of voters for the other political parties in say California, Texas, New York, Florida; none of these voters will get their voice heard because of how they typically vote (CA going blue, Texas going red). Popular vote ensures that all votes matter, not just whatever happens to be a battle ground state which change every 10 years or so. BTW saying that one party having a trifecta of governance as autocratic is fucking moronic and not accurate. Words have meaning, lets not diminish them because you're upset people don't vote how you want.
  - leereeves 2y ago
    Do you truly believe it would be preferable, if one party consistently wins 51% of the vote, and the other wins 49%, to have one party permanently in power? That (51% of votes translating into 100% of power) is certainly not fair either. One thing the current system does surprising well is ensure that power remains divided over the long term.
    - azemetre 2y ago
      Only if you define power as the length of a single human lifespan and not something that continues on when you exit our plane of existence. The US has gone through dozens of major political and regional political parties over the last 200 years. Acting like this is ossified is just demonstrably false. It sounds like you are more upset about the first-past-the-post voting system and that I agree with you.
      - throwaway48476 2y ago
        First past the post creates the two party system. The multi party parliamentary systems give far more power to the party leader to the extent that all tweets by liberal party members in Canada have to be approved by the leaders office. So instead of a MP that represents a constituency it ends up with only ~5 leaders that are allowed independent opinions.
  - throwaway48476 2y ago
    >Words have meaning, lets not diminish them because you're upset people don't vote how you want. I don't know how you twisted my words in your mind to insinuate I just want 'them' to vote for 'my' team. Governments that are dominated by one party, whether it be north korea, russia, or California tend to ossify and are controlled by party apparatchiks instead of democratically elected politicians. When there are multiple parties in close competition all parties are forced to be more responsive to the electorate.
    - azemetre 2y ago

yongjik 2y ago

Only if we're stuck in the 18th century technology and a presidential candidate has to physically visit each small town to talk to its people. In that case, yes, small states wouldn't matter because no candidate will have time to visit Omaha or Boise. But thankfully we're in the 21st century: a candidate can mail flyers and buy youtube ads with policies tailored for those perennial "red" states. Under the current system it makes zero difference, so nobody bothers, and they stay forgotten. Under popular vote, every citizen who votes for you in Omaha, NE is as good as another citizen in Philadelphia, PA.