|
Just wondering...why is it that one candidate wins the popular vote but doesn't actually win the election because of the "electoral college"? Why is that a thing? Why is it that the actual citizen's votes mean next to nothing and the votes of some guys that "represent" a state is what actually matters? It's doesn't make sense to me.
|
The concept of the electoral college makes sense, the US being a representative democracy. But the thing that bothers me the most about elections is the "winner takes all" rule in 48/50 states. The fact that winning 51% of the votes in any given state will get you 100% of the electoral votes from that state is broken af. States that are very split between republican/democrat (such as -- every "swing state") (due to polarized urban centers and rural areas) matter the most because of this. As David pointed out (meme below), if the "winner takes all" rule didnt exist and votes were divided within the state (similar to how House of Reps are elected), Trump couldve scraped up votes from upstate NY; Hillary couldve scraped up votes from lower Florida; Pennsylvania wouldnt have been the nail in Hillarys coffin.
There's no reason a map should look like this:
and the candidate loses. You're just wrong. This picture clearly shows it. Hillary won New York and California by winning NYC and LA/San Diego alone... |
|
**** man where's GhettoIcedTea?
GOAT is back but where's my boy GIT?
|
I considered bumping the "cant stump the trump" thread a few times today, but i dont want to be "that guy"