Avery
Well-Known Member
I just subscribe to the notion that we're a big country and whomever gets the most votes gets the win. Whether that's R, D, whatever, let the people vote and choose their candidate like big kids. A vote in California should count the same as a vote in North Dakota and so on.It becomes easier to explain when you point out that if it weren’t for the Electoral College, no vote in any of the 49 states outside of California would matter. If the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact goes into effect, California will appoint the US President in every election.
Check it for yourself. For decades now, the candidate that wins California always wins the popular vote. That goes for Democrats like Hillary or Republicans like Ronald Reagan. Because of the population, money, and media exposure that California can generate, the Eastern Seaboard, the Deep South, the Midwest, Texas, and every other part of the nation become irrelevant without the Electoral College. If you want to disenfranchise 87% of Americans, pass NPVIC to empower “one person: one vote”.
It's pretty easy to argue that candidates really only focus on 5-10 states every election anyway because of the EC. How many people don't vote because they already know who's going to win their state? I think we all have friends/family who sit at home knowing a D is going to win in New York and a R is going to win in West Virginia.
Put it to you this way: you could gerrymander it and move every single D to California to increase it's EC number to the point of where winning the state would be =>270 EV (or any state for that matter - let's move them all to Alaska as land is cheap). That would be unfair and idiotic as you'd have one state > 49 states even if the population of those other states was balanced.
Last edited: