And if you take out a couple states, Clinton won the electoral college. What's your point? That we should ignore the votes of two of the largest states because they don't agree with you?

If we change to a popular vote system then the entire race looks different. It's a silly argument either way.

> That we should ignore the votes of two of the largest states because they don't agree with you?

Ahh, yeah. That's the point. So America isn't CaliforNewYork.

The electoral college isn't a scam, it exists to bring balance, so your hipster javascript developer gets the same weight as a coal miner in rural Ohio.

Why should the coal miner get more of a voice than the guy who lives in a city? They're both citizens, right?

They both get to vote on their state, city, and county stuff. Why should the guy who lives in the middle of nowhere get to say "my vote's worth 50x what yours is, sucker!!"?

The minority already has constitutional protections to live, love, worship, engage in commerce, employ speech and association, without interference from the majority. Their rights are already guaranteed by the constitution.

Getting a way-outsized vote in federal elections is undemocratic, and doesn't protect the minority from "tyranny" so much as give it outsized power, just as a quirk of geography.

So the alternative is tyranny of the minority?

It doesn't reassure me that we give much more weight to a minority of voters just because they live in less densely populated areas. That's completely arbitrary.

It could be argued that 100 people living in 3 counties have a greater diversity of concerns and opinions than 100 people sharing an apartment complex.

Is "diversity of concerns" a primary goal of democracy? Obviously for issues that directly affect a local region, I do think those should be handled by a local government. The people in the apartment complex probably ought to have different rules than people in rural counties, each reflecting the concerns of the local population.

But there's only one President for the whole country, for better or for worse. It doesn't make sense to me to apply this idea here.

From your description it sounds like thats the only time it makes sense, to me at least. Ie, the President should hopefully be working for the whole country, not just the most dense areas.

I guess another way to look at it is that the president is responsible for such a large area, that population is far less of a concern (in my view). S/he should know not to set laws that focus on a locality, because the states can do a far better job at that.

I don't want the president to set laws for me (just an example) focusing on people in downtown LA or NYC - i don't live there, my world is very different. I want my president to consider the whole country, and let the states/counties handle raw locality.

> From your description it sounds like thats the only time it makes sense, to me at least. Ie, the President should hopefully be working for the whole country, not just the most dense areas.

But that's not the alternative proposed. The alternative proposed is that a human in a sparsely populated area gets MORE influence than a human in a densely populated area. If you go with the national popular vote idea, the President should be the candidate who got the most votes by humans without regard for the population density where they live.

> I guess another way to look at it is that the president is responsible for such a large area, that population is far less of a concern (in my view).

Population density is an extremely meaningless demographic to adjust for. Seriously, why does that matter? Sure, you can show a map of the US and see that most land area went Republican even when the Democratic candidate wins, but if you think about it for a moment, why does land area matter? Surely no one would go so far as to suggest that every unit of land area should have the same influence on the election (i.e. you get to vote once for every acre of land you own).

> I don't want the president to set laws for me (just an example) focusing on people in downtown LA or NYC - i don't live there, my world is very different. I want my president to consider the whole country, and let the states/counties handle raw locality.

That's a reasonable desire, but how does giving people in sparsely populated areas MORE influence help this? It may help you if you live in a sparsely populated area, but it doesn't help the goal of having the president consider the entire country.

Who cares how diverse their opinions are?

If I moved out to the countryside, should I suddenly get 10x more voting power over you, for decisions about running the country?

Cause that's what's happening.

Lots of decisions in life are arbitrary, or based on fuzzy moral standings.

The U.S. should move to a political system where coastal city-dwelling individuals have 4x the voting power of people who live inland and in rural areas.

It's not arbitrary, or about whose votes matter more or population density at all. It's because the United States is actually a union of what was, before the founding of the country as we know it, relatively sovereign states. By joining the union they were giving up much of that sovereignty. It was good for the union that more states joined, so the great compromise was to allow states who were fearful of being dominated by foreign opinions to be granted additional votes just for being 1 state. So Rhode Island residents don't just vote as individuals - they get some votes proportionally and some votes for being a member state of the union. How do so many people educated in the United States not know about that compromise?

I know the reasons the electoral college was chosen. I still don't think it's necessarily a good idea, especially given the modern role of the President.

Oh I thought you had an erroneous understanding since, you know, you posted an inaccurate strawman in your previous comment.

Why draw the lines by state? Wouldn't income or race be better dividers?

The design of the electoral college was not to prevent influence by larger states. That's the function of the Senate. The electoral college exists in part to enable the 3/5ths compromise and in part to allow the vote of the people to be changed by someone who is theoretically more sophisticated.

So then, America now is TexasOklahoma? If those two states went blue, Hillary would have won. This argument is extremely weak.

> so your hipster javascript developer gets the same weight as a coal miner in rural Ohio

Except it doesn't do that. It gives the farmer in Wyoming more power than either.

And no, it wasn't designed to be this way. Not to this extent.

> The same weight is one human, one vote. Period.

You are entitled to your opinion! That's not how the system is currently designed.

> You keep implying that the rest of us aren't Americans and don't deserve an equal voice, and don't be surprised if we start trying to secede or revolt violently against the tyrants ruling over America's urban majority against our will.

Good luck with that. You want to bleed out in the street, go for it. Plenty of other first world countries for me to move my family to.

>Good luck with that. You want to bleed out in the street, go for it. Plenty of other first world countries for me to move my family to.

Very few others with low taxes, no universal health-care, no universal pension, and a general fetish for empowering the rural bourgeoisie at everyone else's expense.

Personally, I've got three countries on my short list to apply to, maybe four. But I'm still going to start taking self-defense lessons, because with a neo-fascist government, you people have gone too damn far. You are enabling the most violent, evil elements in society, and that warrants a response.

You actually think street gangs are worse than neo-Nazis?

To be fair, there are probably a whole lot more gang members than there are neo-Nazis, even if we widen that umbrella to include all racial supremacist groups with significant violent tendencies. Hell, throw in religious extremists for good measure, of all stripes, and I bet non-racially-motivated gangs still commit way more murders in a given year (in the US, which seemed like the context of this exchange).

Not that neo-Nazis aren't awful, obviously.

You're right, that's a very fair point. Gangs kill more people than Nazis, in the same way that car crashes kill far more than terrorists.

I think if I didn't suspect that neo-Nazis were cozy with the government nowadays (long before this election I heard frightening stories of white supremacists working their way up in police departments and the FBI), I'd have every grounds to dismiss them in favor of worrying about gangs and car crashes.

I think Darth Vader is worse than neo-Nazis and equally likely to affect affect my life in any measurable way.

Street gangs have done several killings near where I live, neo-Nazis and Darth Vader, not so much.

CA would be the 7th largest economy in the world if it were its own country. NY would be 11th. But yes, let's just pretend like they don't matter when it comes to the US as a whole.

> CA would be the 7th largest economy in the world if it were its own country. NY would be 11th. But yes, let's just pretend like they don't matter when it comes to the US as a whole.

Except we're not pretending like they don't matter. We're pretending they have a proportionate say. Regardless of wether your hypothetical proportion would be sound or not the proportion just isn't based on the size of the economy of a state.

Businesses work that way though.

You're free to petition for a CAexit or NYexit if you desire. Not that that'd happen either...

> Except we're not pretending like they don't matter. We're pretending they have a proportionate say.

Well... they don't have a proportionate say, if by "proportionate" you mean "in proportion to their population". They have less say then that.

But they also don't have a proportionate say if you mean "in proportion to their only being one state out of fifty". They have more say than that.

All of which is by design. Whining about it now is just sour grapes. Now, if people had been complaining about it since they first learned about it in junior high civics class, then I'd be more inclined to grant them that they have a principled position...

I live in Washington State, which was essentially totally ignored by all the candidates. The reason is simple - WA is an overwhelmingly blue state with a winner-take-all delegate selection.

If elections were based on the popular vote, then the candidates would have been here campaigning, which might have dramatically changed the vote in WA. Not enough to turn it red, but a big chunk.

My point is that changing the rules on how Presidents are elected will change how they are campaigned, the platforms of the candidates, etc. One cannot assume a voter tally under one scheme will be the same as the tally under another - not at all.

Not when it comes to an election. It is what it is but the electoral college is the rules to the game. The popular vote does not mean one thing in America when it comes to an election.

If California were to become it's own country tomorrow, Californians would learn how much they also depend on other states.

You don't even have to go further than electricity and water supply to see how much they rely on other states. But I'm sure there's a lot of other areas where they're reliant on other states as well.

Other than the Colorado River, does California depend on other states for water? If California seceded, wouldn't they retain their part of the Colorado River Compact?

Power, I'll grant you. They've been "exporting pollution" by having power plants built in other states for a while now...

> If California seceded, wouldn't they retain their part of the Colorado River Compact?

Well I would imagine that deal would have to be revisited in light of a secession, no?

That's basically what my point was. Maybe they wouldn't have to, but I imagine they would.

Yea, and many of us don't live in CA. The country is 50 states, of which the president should represent. If you want laws specialized for CA, pass them in CA. This is why federal should be staying out of local affairs in my book. Because the needs for CA and NY are drastically different than less populated areas.

There is no winning here. You either ignore the voice of CA or the voice of less populated states. You're arguing to ignore a voice, just the same as it is now.

"If I discount 20% of the nation's population, he won the popular vote"

That's like saying: let's ignore 58.55 million voters for no reason other than where they live. More than 18% of the entire US population.

States are arbitrary dividers, it's silly to think there's some great reason for allowing people in some random groups (states) have much more voting power than others. What if the dividers were based on income, race, etc? Wouldn't even that be more reasonable?

Ummmm and Illinois, you know the one with Chicago. Hillary won IL popular vote with 3,090,729 votes to Trump's 2,146,015.