• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why the winner take all system is broken

Masterhawk

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2016
Messages
1,908
Reaction score
489
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Alot of people who defend the electoral college say that it encourages presidential candidates to campaign all over the US rather than a few states, that npv is "tyranny of the majority", or that a national popular vote would be "direct democracy". Allow me to show you why those arguments are BS.

First we must understand why the ec was created. It was created primarily because the founders feared that direct presidential elections would lead to candidates winning the election by just making promises. Where have I seen that before? Also, our senatorial and gubernatorial elections don't have an ec, it's just a simple popular vote; no one seems to be complaining. The second reason it was created was to protect small states. This was proposed particularly to give the slave states an advantage by counting 3/5 of the slaves for congressional redistribution. The last reason was because a few hundred votes was simply easier to count than several million back then. You see, information traveled a lot slower back then and it took days if not weeks to reach DC. Nowadays, information reaches someone from the other side of the planet within a second. Now without further adue, let's get into why the EC is a bad system.

1. the EC keeps the election from being consolidated down to a few states.

CuwLKOoW8AQDFMq.jpg

The below map utterly debunks that argument:

map-2016-campaign-events-v1-2016-11-7 (1).jpg

By now, it is no secret that almost the entire election takes place in just 10 states which collectively add up to just 28% of America's population. Sure an unexpecting state or two might flip rarely but Florida and Ohio will always be swing states and California, Texas, Massachusetts, New York, Vermont, Alabama, Louisiana, and Washington are all safe states with zero chance of flipping. You see, the main problem with the current system isn't that it's possible for a candidate to win with less votes than another candidate, it's that all the campaigning is concentrated in a few states. Ironically, not only does our system not prevent it from being just a few states, it causes it.

2. it protects small states

:lamo

Ok I'm sorry but do you know how many campaign events were held in all of the states with a smaller population than New Hampshire? ZERO


3. popular vote is tyranny of the majority

If that's so, then why do we use this system to elect governors and senators?

In fact, our current system might be "tyranny of the majority". Allow me to explain. 4 million voters in California turned out for Donald trump; this is roughly equal to the amount of eligible voters in Colorado, the latter is worth 9 electoral votes. Those 4 million votes amounted to nothing because the democrats in CA drowned them out and the winner take all system treats it as if every voter in CA turned out for Clinton.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_California,_2016

This map of Illinois shows the state actually being quite conservative but Chicago keeps that from happening:

Illinois_Presidential_Election_Results_2016.svg.jpg

New York would be swing state if it weren't for New York City

New_York_Presidential_Election_Results_2016.svg.jpg

In Illinois and New York, we see the voters of most of the state nullified by the voters in the big city, but in Texas, Tennessee, and Indiana, it's the other way around with Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Austin, Memphis, Nashville, and Indianapolis all voting in majority for Clinton. Yet, their votes do not matter as the men of the countryside have cast their votes for Trump.

4. pop vote would condense the election down to the big cities.

While it is true that most of the population lives in a select few counties, we actually have a pop vote, there's just 56 of them (including DC and the districts of Maine and Nebraska). When campaigning in Ohio, do candidates campaign everywhere in the state or just Cleveland and Columbus? If the answer is the former then why do you think that would change if it was only 1 popular vote instead of 56? If it's the latter then how is our current system any better than popular vote?

5. it's "direct democracy"

changing how the president is elected does not change the fact that the US is a representative republic
 
I just glanced at the OP, I saw two things, one that made me ask "what does the 55 mean on North Carolina because we only have 15 votes in the EC (13 House seats and 2 Senate seats = 15 EC votes)", and then I observed that #5 is only partly correct, the US is a Constitutional Republic. The term representative republic is redundant. Just sayin'.
 
Last edited:
I just glanced at the OP, I saw two things, one that made me ask "what does the 55 mean on North Carolina because we only have 15 votes in the EC (13 House seats and 2 Senate seats = 15 EC votes)", and then I observed that #5 is only partly correct, the US is a Constitutional Republic. The term representative republic is redundant. Just sayin'.

That was the number of campaign stops in that state.
 
Alot of people who defend the electoral college say that it encourages presidential candidates to campaign all over the US rather than a few states, that npv is "tyranny of the majority", or that a national popular vote would be "direct democracy". Allow me to show you why those arguments are BS.

First we must understand why the ec was created. It was created primarily because the founders feared that direct presidential elections would lead to candidates winning the election by just making promises. Where have I seen that before? Also, our senatorial and gubernatorial elections don't have an ec, it's just a simple popular vote; no one seems to be complaining. The second reason it was created was to protect small states. This was proposed particularly to give the slave states an advantage by counting 3/5 of the slaves for congressional redistribution. The last reason was because a few hundred votes was simply easier to count than several million back then. You see, information traveled a lot slower back then and it took days if not weeks to reach DC. Nowadays, information reaches someone from the other side of the planet within a second. Now without further adue, let's get into why the EC is a bad system.

1. the EC keeps the election from being consolidated down to a few states.

View attachment 67210859

The below map utterly debunks that argument:

View attachment 67210860

By now, it is no secret that almost the entire election takes place in just 10 states which collectively add up to just 28% of America's population. Sure an unexpecting state or two might flip rarely but Florida and Ohio will always be swing states and California, Texas, Massachusetts, New York, Vermont, Alabama, Louisiana, and Washington are all safe states with zero chance of flipping. You see, the main problem with the current system isn't that it's possible for a candidate to win with less votes than another candidate, it's that all the campaigning is concentrated in a few states. Ironically, not only does our system not prevent it from being just a few states, it causes it.

2. it protects small states

:lamo

Ok I'm sorry but do you know how many campaign events were held in all of the states with a smaller population than New Hampshire? ZERO


3. popular vote is tyranny of the majority

If that's so, then why do we use this system to elect governors and senators?

In fact, our current system might be "tyranny of the majority". Allow me to explain. 4 million voters in California turned out for Donald trump; this is roughly equal to the amount of eligible voters in Colorado, the latter is worth 9 electoral votes. Those 4 million votes amounted to nothing because the democrats in CA drowned them out and the winner take all system treats it as if every voter in CA turned out for Clinton.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_California,_2016

This map of Illinois shows the state actually being quite conservative but Chicago keeps that from happening:

View attachment 67210861

New York would be swing state if it weren't for New York City

View attachment 67210862

In Illinois and New York, we see the voters of most of the state nullified by the voters in the big city, but in Texas, Tennessee, and Indiana, it's the other way around with Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Austin, Memphis, Nashville, and Indianapolis all voting in majority for Clinton. Yet, their votes do not matter as the men of the countryside have cast their votes for Trump.

4. pop vote would condense the election down to the big cities.

While it is true that most of the population lives in a select few counties, we actually have a pop vote, there's just 56 of them (including DC and the districts of Maine and Nebraska). When campaigning in Ohio, do candidates campaign everywhere in the state or just Cleveland and Columbus? If the answer is the former then why do you think that would change if it was only 1 popular vote instead of 56? If it's the latter then how is our current system any better than popular vote?

5. it's "direct democracy"

changing how the president is elected does not change the fact that the US is a representative republic

You make a persuasive argument. I don't think there's a strong argument in favor of the EC, afaik there are primarily practical challenges in implementing changes to the existing system.
 
I agree with you (and it wouldn't have changed the end result, but represented it better). One I would add, if it can be found, would be a chart of visits in 2012, since it's probably skewed a bit for this election with some states seen being up for grab that aren't usually.
 
My only real gripe with the EC is it has not proportionality. I don't mind the idea of strengthening smaller states artificially through EC, but when a candidate can barely squeak by and win all of the votes it feels pretty screwed up. I don't like the idea of a strait popular vote method. Urban areas and rural areas have different issue sets.
 
changing how the president is elected does not change the fact that the US is a representative republic

Hi, I'm new here. I've been a fan of proportional representation for a while. I think the founders would have been fans. We are exceptional with this winner take all system. Arguably every other stable democracy uses the PR formula. Most of those democracies that use PR are newer than our own. The world does not base their democracy on us. They used bits and pieces of our example. Just like we did. We used bits and pieces from others when we began. Why not move to the next phase? Both Jefferson and Hamilton weren't fans of a two party system. It was all we could figure up at the time. I hate the EC, but we can keep them and just improve some by doing like Maine and Nebraska already do, somewhat.
 
Good evening, Jack. :2wave:

It doesn't look like changing the system would have assured Hilary the win in 2016 anyway! I'm sure this isn't going to be the last attempt to change the EC system to favor one party or the other though, but since there's still lots of time till 2020. . .back to the drawing board, boys and girls! :lamo:

Good evening, Polgara.:2wave:

Well said.:mrgreen:
 
First we must understand why the ec was created. It was created primarily because the founders feared that direct presidential elections would lead to candidates winning the election by just making promises. Where have I seen that before? Also, our senatorial and gubernatorial elections don't have an ec, it's just a simple popular vote; no one seems to be complaining. The second reason it was created was to protect small states. This was proposed particularly to give the slave states an advantage by counting 3/5 of the slaves for congressional redistribution. The last reason was because a few hundred votes was simply easier to count than several million back then. You see, information traveled a lot slower back then and it took days if not weeks to reach DC. Nowadays, information reaches someone from the other side of the planet within a second. Now without further adue, let's get into why the EC is a bad system.

You're missing one key component as to why the EC exists. There is a reason that the name of our country is The United States of America. I've underlined the key words in that name. Despite popular thought the US is NOT one country. It is actually several united countries. Pre-Civil War era the Federal government was actually quite weak. It wasn't until after the Civil War that the Federal government was able to gain the majority of its power. Particularly with the 14th Amendment being ratified. Before then States had far more power than they do today. But despite that loss of power the States still retain enough power to completely change the Federal government if they wish to.

1. the EC keeps the election from being consolidated down to a few states.

The below map utterly debunks that argument:

No, actually it doesn't. In fact it actually re-enforces it. Without the EC there are only about 6 maybe 7 states (currently) that any Presidential runner would ever have to visit...EVER. (California, Colorado, Florida, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Texas being the maybe as over time and due to the amount of personal campaigning there could shift it to a purple type state) Provided that population centers did not change. Ex: A crap ton of people left CA to...say Idaho. Unless something like that happens then any Presidential runner could always ignore all other states across generations of elections. And leave propaganda to influence the rest. This means that no other state would ever have a say in a Presidential Election.

With the current system at the beginning of a Presidential election no one knows which state will be swing states. It isn't until late in the game does swing states become noticeable and as such that is when candidates start focusing their attentions. What your "map" doesn't tell you is where the candidates campaigned early in the campaign vs where they campaigned late in the campaign. IE: Your map is too simple.

2. it protects small states

No, it doesn't protect them. But it DOES give them more of a say.

3. popular vote is tyranny of the majority

If that's so, then why do we use this system to elect governors and senators?

Because there are certain aspects which due to agreement the States cannot force upon the people living in those states. That is left up to the Federal government, which is answerable to ALL the states. IE: It is limited. It is not a full on direct democracy due to that. Plus the governments of each state is based off of the federal government blue print. Each State has the same kind of checks and balances that our federal government has. Each state has a "President" (only they're called Governors) which is the executive branch of the State. Each State has its legislative branch with its own representatives. And each state has a judicial branch. All formed with the same type of checks and balances that the Federal government has. Each state is still a Representative Democracy. Just like the Federal Government. This means that there is no direct democracy happening despite what you may think.

To be continued...
 
4. pop vote would condense the election down to the big cities.

While it is true that most of the population lives in a select few counties, we actually have a pop vote, there's just 56 of them (including DC and the districts of Maine and Nebraska). When campaigning in Ohio, do candidates campaign everywhere in the state or just Cleveland and Columbus? If the answer is the former then why do you think that would change if it was only 1 popular vote instead of 56? If it's the latter then how is our current system any better than popular vote?

Because the EC gives all states a say. Which is far better than a few select counties/states. As stated above a candidate would never have to visit ANY other state other than the majority ones. As it stands candidates have to visit multiple ones and different ones every single election cycle because at the beginning neither side knows which states will be the swing states.

5. it's "direct democracy"

changing how the president is elected does not change the fact that the US is a representative republic

Perhaps. But it would guarantee that a President would only be beholden to a select few places instead of the entire country. Which is what the President is supposed to be. Beholden to ALL the states, not just a select few.

I'd also like to draw your attention to this wiki link. It actually breaks down swing states and gives a good explanation regarding them. For it being a wiki page its surprisingly informative and will probably give you info that you hadn't realized before. link
 
Last edited:
Because the EC gives all states a say. Which is far better than a few select counties/states. As stated above a candidate would never have to visit ANY other state other than the majority ones.
The electoral college does not protect the small states. Every state with a smaller population than New Hampshire got zero campaign events. Also, a few select states getting almost all of the attention is exactly what our current winner take all system does. Just look at this image.

map-2016-campaign-events-v1-2016-11-7.jpg

And not only are safe states ignored but the voters don't even matter. If you voted for Trump in Illinois (which only got 1 event despite being worth the same as Pennsylvania which got 54) but the state went blue, guess what, your vote is now null and void all because of Chicago. Any system which allows a region to dictate how the rest of the state votes is a failure to democracy.
As it stands candidates have to visit multiple ones and different ones every single election cycle because at the beginning neither side knows which states will be the swing states.

Umm no, Ohio has been a swing state since the third election (the first two were curb stomp elections for George Washington). And al of the other swing states have been swing states for awhile and are expected to remain so for quite some time so it's a lot more predictable than you think.
Perhaps. But it would guarantee that a President would only be beholden to a select few places instead of the entire country. Which is what the President is supposed to be. Beholden to ALL the states, not just a select few.

We already live in a country where a few states get to decide the election.

I'd also like to draw your attention to this wiki link. It actually breaks down swing states and gives a good explanation regarding them. For it being a wiki page its surprisingly informative and will probably give you info that you hadn't realized before. link
 
The electoral college does not protect the small states. Every state with a smaller population than New Hampshire got zero campaign events. Also, a few select states getting almost all of the attention is exactly what our current winner take all system does. Just look at this image.

View attachment 67213403

It's got 26 states that were visited. How many states do you think would be visited if instead of the EC we went by the popular vote? I suggested 7 in my post to you based on populace. 26 is a lot bigger than 7 wouldn't you say?

And not only are safe states ignored but the voters don't even matter. If you voted for Trump in Illinois (which only got 1 event despite being worth the same as Pennsylvania which got 54) but the state went blue, guess what, your vote is now null and void all because of Chicago. Any system which allows a region to dictate how the rest of the state votes is a failure to democracy.

Of course that one vote matters. It mattered as to whether that state would support one president or the other. The fact that you attempt to frame it the way that you do shows that you do not understand how the EC works. It also ignores what I said in my previous post to you regarding The United States of America.

Umm no, Ohio has been a swing state since the third election (the first two were curb stomp elections for George Washington). And al of the other swing states have been swing states for awhile and are expected to remain so for quite some time so it's a lot more predictable than you think.

How do swing states become swing states? Do you know?


We already live in a country where a few states get to decide the election.

There would be even fewer states that get to decide the election if we were to go to a popularity vote. In fact it would prolly go down to cities deciding the election more than states.
 
Alot of people who defend the electoral college say that it encourages presidential candidates to campaign all over the US rather than a few states, that npv is "tyranny of the majority", or that a national popular vote would be "direct democracy". Allow me to show you why those arguments are BS.

First we must understand why the ec was created. It was created primarily because the founders feared that direct presidential elections would lead to candidates winning the election by just making promises. Where have I seen that before? Also, our senatorial and gubernatorial elections don't have an ec, it's just a simple popular vote; no one seems to be complaining. The second reason it was created was to protect small states. This was proposed particularly to give the slave states an advantage by counting 3/5 of the slaves for congressional redistribution. The last reason was because a few hundred votes was simply easier to count than several million back then. You see, information traveled a lot slower back then and it took days if not weeks to reach DC. Nowadays, information reaches someone from the other side of the planet within a second. Now without further adue, let's get into why the EC is a bad system.

1. the EC keeps the election from being consolidated down to a few states.

View attachment 67210859

The below map utterly debunks that argument:

View attachment 67210860

By now, it is no secret that almost the entire election takes place in just 10 states which collectively add up to just 28% of America's population. Sure an unexpecting state or two might flip rarely but Florida and Ohio will always be swing states and California, Texas, Massachusetts, New York, Vermont, Alabama, Louisiana, and Washington are all safe states with zero chance of flipping. You see, the main problem with the current system isn't that it's possible for a candidate to win with less votes than another candidate, it's that all the campaigning is concentrated in a few states. Ironically, not only does our system not prevent it from being just a few states, it causes it.

2. it protects small states

:lamo

Ok I'm sorry but do you know how many campaign events were held in all of the states with a smaller population than New Hampshire? ZERO


3. popular vote is tyranny of the majority

If that's so, then why do we use this system to elect governors and senators?

In fact, our current system might be "tyranny of the majority". Allow me to explain. 4 million voters in California turned out for Donald trump; this is roughly equal to the amount of eligible voters in Colorado, the latter is worth 9 electoral votes. Those 4 million votes amounted to nothing because the democrats in CA drowned them out and the winner take all system treats it as if every voter in CA turned out for Clinton.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_California,_2016

This map of Illinois shows the state actually being quite conservative but Chicago keeps that from happening:

View attachment 67210861

New York would be swing state if it weren't for New York City

View attachment 67210862

In Illinois and New York, we see the voters of most of the state nullified by the voters in the big city, but in Texas, Tennessee, and Indiana, it's the other way around with Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Austin, Memphis, Nashville, and Indianapolis all voting in majority for Clinton. Yet, their votes do not matter as the men of the countryside have cast their votes for Trump.

4. pop vote would condense the election down to the big cities.

While it is true that most of the population lives in a select few counties, we actually have a pop vote, there's just 56 of them (including DC and the districts of Maine and Nebraska). When campaigning in Ohio, do candidates campaign everywhere in the state or just Cleveland and Columbus? If the answer is the former then why do you think that would change if it was only 1 popular vote instead of 56? If it's the latter then how is our current system any better than popular vote?

5. it's "direct democracy"

changing how the president is elected does not change the fact that the US is a representative republic

I think we can some up your argument in a sentence.

"The winner take all system is broken because my candidate lost the election."

that pretty much sums it up.
 
Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

I always enjoy reading Nate Silver - and Judith Curry - and today I hit the jackpot! Thank you for the links you provided for both my favorites! :thumbs:

Good evening, Polgara.:2wave:

You are most welcome.:mrgreen:
 
Alot of people who defend the electoral college say that it encourages presidential candidates to campaign all over the US rather than a few states, that npv is "tyranny of the majority", or that a national popular vote would be "direct democracy". Allow me to show you why those arguments are BS.

First we must understand why the ec was created. It was created primarily because the founders feared that direct presidential elections would lead to candidates winning the election by just making promises. Where have I seen that before? Also, our senatorial and gubernatorial elections don't have an ec, it's just a simple popular vote; no one seems to be complaining. The second reason it was created was to protect small states. This was proposed particularly to give the slave states an advantage by counting 3/5 of the slaves for congressional redistribution. The last reason was because a few hundred votes was simply easier to count than several million back then. You see, information traveled a lot slower back then and it took days if not weeks to reach DC. Nowadays, information reaches someone from the other side of the planet within a second. Now without further adue, let's get into why the EC is a bad system.



cribbed from a Google search said:
A reform of the Electoral College system would require a Constitutional amendment, and to get a Constitutional amendment passed, it’s necessary to have support from two-thirds of the House and the Senate, or two-thirds of state legislators. That’s an incredibly difficult task, and the Republican party currently holds a majority in both the House and the Senate, making it quite unlikely to happen. After all, the party in power has little incentive to change the system that got them there in the first place.

Does 90% of America's land mass want to be ruled by the other 10% in some concrete jungle somewhere?
 
Alot of people who defend the electoral college say that it encourages presidential candidates to campaign all over the US rather than a few states, that npv is "tyranny of the majority", or that a national popular vote would be "direct democracy". Allow me to show you why those arguments are BS.

First we must understand why the ec was created. It was created primarily because the founders feared that direct presidential elections would lead to candidates winning the election by just making promises. Where have I seen that before? Also, our senatorial and gubernatorial elections don't have an ec, it's just a simple popular vote; no one seems to be complaining. The second reason it was created was to protect small states. This was proposed particularly to give the slave states an advantage by counting 3/5 of the slaves for congressional redistribution. The last reason was because a few hundred votes was simply easier to count than several million back then. You see, information traveled a lot slower back then and it took days if not weeks to reach DC. Nowadays, information reaches someone from the other side of the planet within a second. Now without further adue, let's get into why the EC is a bad system.





Does 90% of America's land mass want to be ruled by the other 10% in some concrete jungle somewhere?

The election is already decided by a select few states called swing states. They compose only 28% of America's population (I added Michigan for good measure). This is less than the biggest 4 states combined which compose a third of the population and considering that 2 are blue, 1 is red, and 1 is a swing state, a candidate cannot spend most of his time there and expect to win.
 
The election is already decided by a select few states called swing states. They compose only 28% of America's population (I added Michigan for good measure). This is less than the biggest 4 states combined which compose a third of the population and considering that 2 are blue, 1 is red, and 1 is a swing state, a candidate cannot spend most of his time there and expect to win.

EC is better because it levels the playing field a bit, and tomorrow's "blue firewall" is next cycles "red challenge".
 
Alot of people who defend the electoral college say that it encourages presidential candidates to campaign all over the US rather than a few states, that npv is "tyranny of the majority", or that a national popular vote would be "direct democracy". Allow me to show you why those arguments are BS.

This could be interesting.

First we must understand why the ec was created. It was created primarily because the founders feared that direct presidential elections would lead to candidates winning the election by just making promises. Where have I seen that before? Also, our senatorial and gubernatorial elections don't have an ec, it's just a simple popular vote; no one seems to be complaining. The second reason it was created was to protect small states. This was proposed particularly to give the slave states an advantage by counting 3/5 of the slaves for congressional redistribution. The last reason was because a few hundred votes was simply easier to count than several million back then.

Well that was just one reason. The other reason is that the corruption of office was the other. The 3rd and big reason was the protest from smaller states that large population centers would mean their vote was invalid.

1. the EC keeps the election from being consolidated down to a few states.

Actually it does. The proof was this past election. If Clinton had actually campaigned in more states than what she did then she probably would have either won
or she would have prevented trump from getting 270 votes. So your first argument is gone.

By now, it is no secret that almost the entire election takes place in just 10 states which collectively add up to just 28% of America's population. Sure an unexpecting state or two might flip rarely but Florida and Ohio will always be swing states and California, Texas, Massachusetts, New York, Vermont, Alabama, Louisiana, and Washington are all safe states with zero chance of flipping. You see, the main problem with the current system isn't that it's possible for a candidate to win with less votes than another candidate, it's that all the campaigning is concentrated in a few states. Ironically, not only does our system not prevent it from being just a few states, it causes it.

Again this past election proved otherwise. several states actually flipped and went in a direction that no one thought they would.

2. it protects small states
Ok I'm sorry but do you know how many campaign events were held in all of the states with a smaller population than New Hampshire? ZERO

Hillary won in NY and CA about 2m popular votes. that was about her margin of victory. therefore your argument is being proved wrong again.
why should CA and NY decide who the president is instead of the rest of the nation? there goes you next argument. you are proving exactly why the EC is needed

3. popular vote is tyranny of the majority
If that's so, then why do we use this system to elect governors and senators?
national popular votes yes. The whole idea of the EC is to break up the power of large population centers. it isn't to take away their voice but to control their voice to their own state.
while allowing other voices to be heard.


In fact, our current system might be "tyranny of the majority". Allow me to explain. 4 million voters in California turned out for Donald trump; this is roughly equal to the amount of eligible voters in Colorado, the latter is worth 9 electoral votes. Those 4 million votes amounted to nothing because the democrats in CA drowned them out and the winner take all system treats it as if every voter in CA turned out for Clinton.

Not at all because when you add CO to other smaller states you can easily catch up to CA. that is what makes campaigning in the majority of states a big deal. if not then I am going to spend the majority of my time in CA, TX, NY, FL
and screw everyone else.

This map of Illinois shows the state actually being quite conservative but Chicago keeps that from happening:
New York would be swing state if it weren't for New York City

You keep proving why the EC is needed

changing how the president is elected does not change the fact that the US is a representative republic

yes it does. it changes the presidency to who can appeal to large population centers the most when that does not reflect the typical American.
 
The election is already decided by a select few states called swing states. They compose only 28% of America's population (I added Michigan for good measure). This is less than the biggest 4 states combined which compose a third of the population and considering that 2 are blue, 1 is red, and 1 is a swing state, a candidate cannot spend most of his time there and expect to win.

yet trump did the exact opposite and won. he actually campaigned to people. in a lot of states.
 
Back
Top Bottom