• Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 hours ago

    because it would do away with swing states, red voters stuck in blue states, and blue voters stuck in red states.

    …and replace it with the election being won based primarily on turnout in California. Like seriously, the last few times a candidate won the electoral college but lost the popular vote it was a case where their margin in California was larger than their margin nationally. As in across the other 49 states more people voted for the person who won the electoral college, and California by itself was responsible for the swing to the other direction. Because California is just so ridiculously big compared to the other states.

    • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      and replace it with the election being won based primarily on turnout in California

      No, it would replace it with a majority FPTP country wide system. Californians are a minority of the country. They do not get sole control, nor would they under a popular vote system.

      California was larger than their margin nationally.

      But not all of that margin comes from California, and not all of Californians vote blue.

      Where you live should have no effect on how much of a voice you have in the federal government. Everybody’s vote should be counted, and counted equally, because we’re all made equally. The current system completely fails at that.