04-04-2019, 03:06 PM
(04-04-2019, 02:46 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Your logic didn't hold up to evidence, hence the dismissal. If you are going to argue that a shift from the EC to a popular vote would mean small states are ignored, you first have to establish that they are not being ignored currently, otherwise it's not an argument in favor of the EC. I established that small states are almost entirely ignored in the EC. You then have to second establish that a proportional approach would not cause small states to get attention. I provided evidence that shows small states on a proportional system do get attention.
Except that's not the only part of my argument. I want the states to have the final say in who leads them, not the aggregate individual voters of the entire nation. You've focused your entire counterpoint on a small section of my argument for the EC.
Quote:Nevada is the 19th smallest state. Iowa is the 21st smallest. Wisconsin is the 31st smallest state or the 20th largest state. I don't think necessarily only using the rankings is fair. I'd look at the average, which is roughly 6m per state. I don't have time to calculate a standard deviation, so I'll suggest we look at states between 4-8m as our "average". Under that definition, Wisconsin is not a small state but Iowa and Nevada are.
Using that number, there are 23 total "small states". 14 had no visits (including all of the smallest 5, 8 of the smallest 10, and 11 of the smallest 15). 3 had 1 visit. 1 had 2 visits. 2 had 3 visits. 1 had 17 visits. 2 had 21 visits. So 20 of the smallest 23 states had 11 total visits, or 2.7% of the total campaign events in this country.
Was this because they were "small" or because they were "safe", as in their vote was safely in the hands of one of the candidates?
