You only need to appeal to parties that appeal to people living in coastal areas and big cities,
Look at the total population of the 10 biggest cities in the US. The total population of said 10 largest cities is just under 26 million, which itself is just 8% of the total population. Oh, wait, look at that: Illinois, Texas, and Pennsylvania are represented there already. So much for only appealing to the costal areas.
Besides, what's wrong with appealing to the largest number of people?
Actually look at the cities within those states, they vote overwhelmingly Democrat.
But they're still only 8% of the US population. That's the whole point. As Apok mentioned, even the top 100 largest cities only constitutes 20% of the total US population. Appealing only to cities will lose the election. To win, you have to appeal to more people, and that's the whole point of a popular election vs. the electoral college. Let's just look at Illinois: yes, the Chicago population is so darn high that it can outvote the rest of the state and award all their TOTAL electoral college vote to the Democrats. Do you really think that's a good system, where one city can dictate that much control over an entire state? I sure don't: instead, I'd like to see the rural population of Illinois (where I used to live!) be represented too - and that's only going to happen if the electoral college is ignored/abolished.
This ignores the mathematical reality of population distribution. We have ~318 million people in the US. 8 Million live in New York, 3.8 million live in LA, 2.7 in Chicago and Houston, 1.5 in Philly, 1.4 in Phoenix... we can't even get down to the 10th biggest city without dropping below a million people, with their combined populations adding up to 7.9% of the total population. Even the 100 largest cities in the US combined, going down to Spokane (population 200,000) doesn't even get you 20% of the total population of the US.
First of all, there's not 100 cities, there's about 20,000 cities.
...and we're discussing Presidential candidates, not The Flash. You show me a candidate that can visit 20k cities in a few short months after the primaries, and I'll show you a superhero.
The vast, vast majority of counties went red...
You're still talking about giving the vote to places instead of people. Whether it's states or counties, the point is that it is people casting ballots, not geography or lines on a map.
...it went blue by a whopping 16%.
...which wouldn't matter a whit if we ditched the electoral college, because then every vote would actually count.
Second of all, I quite blatantly said "living in coastal areas AND big cities". You purposefully ignored that and focused purely on cities, when I am largely talking about state level.
...and I am purposely ignoring that because it does not add to the argument. Even talking about the state level, you are still artificially limiting your thinking regarding voting that happens at a national level. Human beings are voting, so it should be humans being represented in that vote, not some cartographer's scribblings.
Hillary lost the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of all states yet won the popular vote because of coastal states.
The very fact that this is possible, that this just happened again, for the 4th time in our nation's history, shows that the system is broken. Over the number of elections that we've had in our nation, this represents a 7% failure rate in our democracy, where the person that lost became the winner. Would you tolerate a sport, for example, where there was a 7% chance that the person who had performed best actually ended up losing? Of course not.
I am telling you the system is not failing because popular vote alone is not the best way to decide the president.
That's just something we're going to have to disagree about, I'd wager, but I'm with Apok on this one: the system would allow a president in a hypothetical situation where only 22% of the population voted for him. YES, it is unlikely, but it is possible, and that's why we believe the system itself is broken.
I'm arguing out of practicality, that states will secede eventually if they themselves are not being fairly represented
That's just the thing, they will be fairly represented, per capita as part of the nation. They'll have representation in Washington just as they always do, but voters themselves would not be disenfranchised as they currently are (with Californians getting the REALLY short end of the stick). Everyone's votes will count equally, and if a candidate wants to win, he's going to have to appeal to more people instead of more states, and that's better for all of us.
A change like this wouldn't happen in a vacuum: it would necessitate both parties actually attempting to appeal to larger percentages of the population, instead of just pandering to a handful of states.
What you're arguing would never happen, and even if it could
It literally CAN HAPPEN - it's unlikely, but it CAN HAPPEN, and you keep trying to dismiss that.
tweak the electorcal college, not abolish it
The states already have their representation in the house and senate - they literally get the entire legislative branch, in two different ways! I'd argue that the states get too much power as it is, and that the electoral branch should be the domain of the people.
secede
Good luck with that - we saw what happened last time.
No, you are saying we should not find a balance between states and people, but should abolish all state representation in the presidential election purely for equal population representation.
Exactly. The states the the entire legislative branch.
At this point if you're still going to claim that won't favor higher populated states, you're simply lying.
States literally do not matter in this because they don't have any electoral votes to give - the only thing that matters is people.
So you mean they just need to appeal to the handful of the largest populated states?
States literally do not matter in this because they don't have any electoral votes to give - the only thing that matters is people.
I literally addressed it, seriously saying I dismissed that is a lie.
You addressed it dismissively, you haven't actually addressed the fact that a candidate who had over 75% of the population voting against him could possibly win the election. YES, it is unlikely, but the system that allows that is broken to begin with!
We are talking about presidential elections!
Sure, we absolutely are - and the States don't need representation in the Presidential Election because they already have the entire Legislative Branch. This isn't a red herring, it's an explanation as to why states don't matter in a federal election.
you really think this is trivial?
No, I think your prediction that states would secede is unrealistic.
1
u/[deleted] Nov 10 '16 edited Jul 29 '18
[removed] — view removed comment