Quote:
Originally Posted by Frownland
My point was that she got 62 million votes, so pinning it all on California is a bit absurd given that we don't have that many people nor do we vote 100% blue (this election, only 60% of Cali voters picked Hillary).
|
And my point is that if you took New York OR California out of the equation (or more specifically, Los Angeles and New York City), she wouldn't have won the popular vote at all. There would be no 3 million lead coming from one population center.
While I agree that the Electoral College system has some issues, I also believe that without a winner take all system you'd have a democracy where your vote doesn't really matter if you don't live in one of the two most concentrated population centers in the country. A straight popular vote as our end-to-end election process would be stupid when you have so many different population segments scattered across this landmass...where political affiliation is, for the most part, set in stone already BASED on geographical region or even the city in which you live.
As it is, at least we have a bit more diversity by doing things geographically, because otherwise even a large state like Texas would be marginalized in every future election just because Dallas or Houston don't have the same level of population density as L.A.