Anonymous #1 1d

That’s precisely my point. The electoral college creates swing states which places otherwise non-existent importance on states such as Iowa and its voters, who in a popular vote system would be completely disregarded for the voters of cities like Dallas and Los Angeles, as you imply. The electoral college forces candidates to support policies that benefit the urbanites of Detroit and Philadelphia, the suburbanites of Atlanta and Charlotte, and the rural voters of northern Wisconsin.

-1

Anonymous #1 1d

My point was also for primaries, not just the general election. The delegate system forces candidates to support the ideas of a wide range of interests.

3

Anonymous OP 1d

Hell nah In a world it could be where it’s NOT first-past-the-post but still electoral college Meaning that rural/small states voters votes just straight up matter more than urban voters. I can see that.

4

Anonymous #1 1d

But campaign for WHERE THE PEOPLE ARE

6

Anonymous #2 1d

Well historically they’ve been swing states so i used them, i guess they aren’t as much anymore

1

Anonymous OP 1d

That’s true. we could have popular vote and that wouldn’t change anything about the primaries. State would still hold their own primaries

1

Anonymous #1 1d

Are people from Iowa not American???

1

Anonymous #3 1d

They are American, but Iowas population is straight up 2-3x smaller then just the DFW metroplex It’s about the same size as the Denver metro area

0

Anonymous #1 1d

And yet, their voices still matter. That is the importance of the electoral college. Freedom and justice for all, not just rich urbanites.

4

Anonymous OP 23h

3 different kinds of indecisive centrist white dude. So diverse!

1

Anonymous #4 23h

A full popular vote system isn’t perfect but it’s worlds better than the current system. The electoral college is just that dogshit. The entire election hinges not on who the majority of the country supports, but on who wins over a tiny population of swing voters in specific states.

4

Anonymous #4 23h

Also it’s telling that you don’t view people who live in urban areas as being “everyday Americans.” Cities aren’t some special entity of the nebulous elite. It’s just where the majority of human beings live. A person shouldn’t matter more in democracy just because of where they live.

5

Anonymous #4 23h

I want you to think about something. You believe in the electoral college because it gives increased political power to a minority population (rural voters) which you feel would be ignored otherwise. Do you think that the votes of ethnic minorities should count more than white people? Why not (because I doubt you do)? It’s the same principle. Candidates currently aren’t campaigning to black and Native American voters, thus their interests are being neglected.

4

Anonymous #4 23h

The only reason candidates don’t campaign to black or native voters is because of how stagnantly partisan they are. Hispanics and Asians were heavily targeted in the last election because they were seen as crucial swing demographics. That isn’t a good comparison at all because it’s blatantly untrue.

6

Anonymous OP 23h

If they’re that partisan doesn’t that show they one party isn’t putting in any effort to appeal to them?

4

Anonymous OP 23h

They do matter but genuinely I think the voices of more people matter more since IMO democracy is good, with the 1 person = 1 vote thing Rather than the current: “1 Wyomingite vote = 3.75 Californian votes”

5

Anonymous #4 23h

I mean not particularly. Trump definitely made a pitch to black voters, especially black men, it just didn’t really work

5

Anonymous #1 23h

I do like the idea of it but I just keep coming back to the idea of democracy where it’s 1 person 1 vote Rather than 1 person 3.75 votes. Or 1 super pac, $305 million worth of votes or whagever

5

Anonymous OP 23h

How are geographic minorities and ethnic minorities different? Why does one deserve their votes count more and the other doesn’t?

5

Anonymous OP 23h

He tried to appeal to their misogyny but he was too racist

1