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.

    • aidan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      What do you mean? They do matter? A democrat doesn't campaign in California not because it doesn't matter but because they know most Californians will already vote for them, same with Republicans in Texas

      • Cornelius_Wangenheim@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        They don't matter because most states use winner take all for their EC votes. Every additional vote past 50% is absolutely worthless, as is any vote cast in a state where there's no chance to hit 50%.

        With a popular vote system, every vote would still be worth something. It would be worth a politician's while to campaign in California because even if they'd normally get 60%, as it's still worth it to drive higher turnout or try to increase that to 65%. It'd be worth going to a hostile state because a vote is a vote. It doesn't matter where it comes from; they'd all have equal worth.

        • aidan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Every vote past 50% just then wouldn't matter at a national level. Yes it would increase the total number of votes that voted for the winning candidate, but it would also centralize power more into cities.

    • nxfsi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      States with more diversity of opinion have more say. Seems reasonable to me.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why should states have more say? We elect the president nationally. It's not a state election, or it shouldn't be.

        • Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Because we have 50 of them and not 350 million. It's a simple and effective way to get a weighted average.

            • Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Because there's a lot of people that don't live in cities and they need different things from the people that live in cities.

                • Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Literally every thread you have to argue with me. Are you doing that with everyone or just me?

                  Aside from that, there's things federal government can legislate against that the state will absolutely have no say in. I'm more left wing in my politics but guns, despite being a fundamental right seems most fought against by the left and fought for by the right.

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I don't even notice usernames most of the time. Maybe I "have to" argue with you because you say a lot of disputable things. Turn down the paranoia a few notches.