Originally Posted by NW Ponderer
Originally Posted by Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted by NW Ponderer
There is too much in this post to "correct", so I will concentrate on just one glaring error:
Originally Posted by Senator Hatrack
You have that backwards. The votes of 1/3 of people do count because of the Electoral College.
This is a repetitive error used in support of the EC that is demonstrably, empirically, and logically wrong. As emotionally resonant as it seems, it is just that - an appeal to emotion. Here's where the error comes from:

Nearly every State uses the "winner take all" strategy to entice candidates to "win" their State by campaigning there. That is, inherently, an anti-democratic stance as it essentially negates the votes of the minority - whatever their political bent. It skews the outcome of elections and - is almost entirely ineffective.

There are currently about 10-12 EC relevant "swing" States. They get a disproportionate share of attention in every election. The other States, representing over 100 electoral votes for each side, are "non competitive". We know where their votes are going to go even before the first vote is cast. So the argument that the EC improves the standing of Wyoming or North Dakota during elections just isn't true. Do you know the last time a presidential candidate campaigned there? They don't either.

With a popular vote, however, every State counts, because all the voters in those States count. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes. Out of 130 million votes cast. That is a small margin. The margins in previous elections have been closer. If every vote counted, rather than just those of "swing" States all candidates have an incentive to campaign everywhere. Republicans would go to California and New York to campaign, not just fundraise, and Democrats would hit Texas, Kansas, and Wyoming to get out the Democratic vote. The voters would actually matter more in small States than they ever have.
Twice now in your rush to lecture me you have ignored a link I posted. A link that would show that your assertion is wrong.
I have not ignored the links, I read them. Nor do I believe they support your arguments. I'm disagreeing with the substance of your arguments, which does not require that I refute every element of every link to a source one provides. I can do so, but I already have a tendency to pedantry, a bad habit of mine.

Let me show an example: in a previous post you asserted
Quote
No, the majority of states do not have rural populations. In all states the majority of the population lives in urban areas.
In support of that assertion, you cited https://www.statista.com/statistics/985183/size-urban-rural-population-us/. I went to the source, but it does not support the claim, or even address it. It shows that the majority of Americans live in (undefined) urban areas, but does not differentiate by States.
Quote
This statistic illustrates the size of the urban and rural population of the United States from 1960 to 2018. In 2018, there were approximately 58.22 million people living in rural areas in the United States, compared to about 269.9 million people living in urban areas.
There is considerable academic and popular discussion of this issue. Examples: The Divides Within, and Between, Urban and Rural America (CityLab) [I highly recommend the series.];
The deep roots of America’s rural-urban political divide (CS Monitor); How America’s urban-rural divide shapes elections (Economist). From that last:
Quote
IN NINE OF America’s 13 congressional elections between 1994 and 2018, the Republican Party won a greater share of seats than votes. In 2012, Democrats failed to garner a majority of seats while winning a broad popular vote victory. Even in the 2018 mid-terms, which were described as a “wave” election, The Economist predicted that the Democrats had to win the popular vote in the House of Representatives by 5-6 percentage points to obtain a bare majority of seats. In the Senate, the situation is worse because of the way states magnify the pro-rural bias of America’s electoral institutions.
This divide is illustrated here: How the Rural-Urban Divide Became America’s Political Fault Line (NYT, the Upshot). [I've tried to post a graphic that demonstrates the point, but software won't cooperate]

It has taken several paragraphs to refute, in detail, a claim in one sentence of your post. I could do this every time, but is it worth the effort? Or would that just demonstrate my "arrogance"? That's a sincere question.
Another lecture. One that misses what my comments say. The purpose of the Electoral College was and is to balance the voting power of the states with a small population to those with a large population. The Electoral College serves as the Senate in a Presidential election.

The Electoral College was not meant to force presidential candidates to campaign in every state. What it does is make it necessary for presidential campaigns have organizations in all states.

But if you want to go off on another long winded reply to something I did not don't let me stop you. In a way NW you remind me of Hubert H. Humphrey, a good man who I had the privilege to know, but one who could not say something in 100 words if he could so in 1,000 words.

The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary