Minority rule

[BmorePat87]

(10-26-2020, 11:09 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Only because California felt REAAAAAAAALLLY strongly about voting D.

Clinton popular vote victory: 2.9m votes
Clinton California vote victory: 4.3m votes

Meaning the popular vote in the other non-CA 49 states was Trump: 1.4m

That is exactly why we have the EC. We're 50 States, not just one mass of people.

That's not exactly why we have it, but the glaring flaw in this argument is that it ignores what voter turnout would be if there was a popular vote. Winner take all discourages minority party voters in non-swing states. The immediate solution is banning winner take all and doing proportional allocation (you can't do district based because of gerrymandering). 

The top 10 populated states split 36.44m to 31.29m (Clinton-Trump) in 2016, though it was a 150-104 electoral split for Trump. Even if you take out California, it went 27.69m Clinton to 26.81m Trump. Trump still wins 150-49 electoral votes. Clinton's 3rd largest haul of voters (Florida) nets her nothing because she lost by 

Even within this system that you're praising for making states matter, Florida had 500k more voters than Texas but 7 less electoral votes. North Carolina also had more voters than Georgia but less electoral votes. 

It's not just because of California.