10-23-2020, 06:28 PM
(10-23-2020, 05:13 PM)GMDino Wrote: So, using round numbers, lets say there are 100 millions voters in the US.
But 15 million live in California, 10 million in Florida, 10 million in NY and 15 million in Texas.
The rest are spread out over the remaining states.
The last Gallup poll shows that voters consider themselves affiliated as such: 28% republican, 27% democrat and %42 Independent.
Gonna round those too to 30, 25, 45.
Then let's assume California and NY skew Democrat while Texas and Florida skew Republican.
As it is now California and NY are not counting the votes of republicans in the national elections because there are simply more democrats there.
Texas and Florida, if they skew Republican, are not counting the votes of democrats in the national elections because there are simply more republicans there.
The rest of the country is doing the same. Whichever state you live in you are at the mercy of the majority when it comes to who you want to be POTUS.
But if every person got a vote and the winner was the person who got the most votes...not won the most states...then every vote would matter.
Republicans would have to care if people in California voted and voters in California would not feel disenfranchised from voting because they felt their votes wouldn't matter since it was most Democrats. Same with Democrats in Texas.
Same with every vote.
Rhode Island would have fewer voters but if their votes were split 75/25 in either directions they would matter more than their EC does now even if it is split 51/49. Every voting citizen in every state would have a say and not have to feel like it doesn't matter because of the R/D make up of the entire state.
That's why I want one person - one vote. Because it would make every vote matter no matter where you lived or the happenstance of how people are registered where you live.
Obviously I could be wrong...lol.
I'm not a voting expert...I'm just a guy with an opinion on a message board.
Respectfully, this argument has been made several times here. I don't think anyone here doesn't understand the underlying logic, they just disagree with the conclusion. For me the unique structure of our government lends itself to states having their own individual say on the election of the POTUS, hence I very much approve of the current system. Additionally, part of my issue, albeit a smaller portion, is that the concern over the current system is driven by dislike of the outcome of the 2016 election. If Hillary had won with less popular vote in 2016 the same people decrying the current system would be its staunchest defenders. Hence I take a bit of a jaundiced view of the objections to the system we've been operating under for almost 200 years.
