Biden takes 2 point lead in new Fox poll

[SunsetBengal]

(06-25-2024, 08:52 AM)CJD Wrote: You could accomplish that while still awarding electoral votes proportionate to margin of victory. In fact, in a lot of ways it would make the rural areas more impactful. There are millions of acres of farm land in Illinois. Nearly 75% of the state is rural. But Chicago is so big, it turns the entire state blue, canceling out those rural voters' votes.

If a states' votes were proportional to the margin of victory, you'd be giving those rural areas more power to influence the election because now, instead of 100% of the votes being determined by the voters in Chicago, they'd only be able to control 71% of the electoral votes (Chicago metro population = 8,937,000. Illinois state population = 12,580,000).

And it also helps with incentivizing candidates to campaign in states that they already know they'll win.

For example, a Republican can basically ignore most of the south and still count on winning their electoral votes. A democrat can probably ignore most of the south because they think it's lost already.

But if you awarded electoral votes proportional to the margin of victory, then there'd be a reason for both sides to campaign in otherwise solid red or blue states. Because if you can change a 60 - 40 state to a 55 - 45 state (or, conversely, to a 65 - 35 state), you will get 5% more of that states' electoral votes.

That means more people's votes matter because margin of victory would matter.

Ok, that makes sense. I must not have read the previous post clearly enough. Thanks for the clarification.