> Subtract California voters, and the competition's outcome makes perfect sense.
Ah yes. Subtract the most populous state in the union by far, which happens to lean democratic, and suddenly democrats aren't as popular.
Makes perfect sense.
Ah yes. Subtract the most populous state in the union by far, which happens to lean democratic, and suddenly democrats aren't as popular.
Makes perfect sense.
It also doesn't happen to lean democratic. That is the product of years of manipulation, lobbying, and cultural shift. Regardless, the point of the EC is to balance out population centers and rural areas as their contributions are different in terms of the Nation. It is an apples to oranges situation. Leaving aside the fact that California is an absolute disaster in terms of social and ecological management by their government, there is no logic outside of Marxist dialectical approach that makes a coherent argument for why they should get to pick the president.
I'm just making fun of the argument that the voter landscape looks different if we omit state X. No shit. Omit Texas and you get a different picture. Omit new York and you get another picture still. This kind of argument is the political equivalent of p-hacking.
Omit Iowa and/or North Dakota and it doesn't change all that much. Both sides of this same argument are precisely the point of the Electoral College. It handicaps high density populations and skews toward rural areas. It is electoral affirmative action.
Their votes would count as much as anyone else's if the presidency were decided by popular vote. Why should all the Republicans in these blue states be censored by the Electoral College when electing the president?
You said earlier that every Californian's vote should be lesser than everyone's vote in smaller and redder states, right? But this censoring of Republicans is a direct consequence of this affirmative action.
And what happens, with the Electoral College in place, if someday the Democrats gain majority in some small states with amplified voting power? The USA would become a one-party state.
Citation needed. 5th largest economy ON EARTH. By that metric, every other state is a disaster.
But.. whatever helps you sleep at night.. I guess.
interesting extra piece, i believe Texas has gone on record saying that if California ever broke up, it would also break up into smaller states. goes along the logic of maintaining what Texas lawmakers believe to be republican constituencies in senate. how that would play out considering texas has been purple AF recently is anyones guess. but in general I also support the idea of breaking up states into smaller bodies.