65% of U.S. adults say the way the president is elected should be changed so that the winner of the popular vote nationwide wins the presidency.
65% of U.S. adults say the way the president is elected should be changed so that the winner of the popular vote nationwide wins the presidency.
Pure popular vote = only large population centers matter because most of the people live there, meaning politicians can safely ignore rural areas that provide all of the food to the cities because they don't matter votes-wise. Terrible idea for a large country that doesn't (net) import its food. This also ignores the fact that stupid, easily manipulated people are also allowed to vote.
Electoral college = rural areas have a disproportionately large voice as they should, but large cities are now neglected. Rural votes are also easily influenced by bad actors, like how China is trying to buy African votes to have a bigger say in the UN.
Except nowhere is homogeneous. There are red voters that live in cities and there are blue voters that live in small farming towns. Right now they don't have a voice because they are separated into districts that are overwhelmingly red or blue
but get rid if the College and now suddenly your vote is worth just as much as your neighbors, regardless of where you live.
They already do. Politicians only focus on swing states, and the cities within those swing states.
They may on occasion visit rural areas, but 9 times out of 10 they are in a city when they are campaigning.
All votes should count equally. Anything less is bullshit.
deleted by creator
I don't understand this common argument and the framing that comes with it - as if they are doing it for free or for altruistic reasons.