| Esteban_Villa |
11-15-2016 19:18 |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ixiterra
(Post 18674925)
we don't know how the popular vote would have turned out if the electoral college didn't exist. not only is the campaign strategy completely different, there's a lot less reason to be a disenfranchised voter in non-swing states. I think Trump had a good chance of winning a popular vote if that is what mattered.
any urban/rural separation the founding fathers had in mind was entirely due to the fact that rural americans had significantly less exposure to the political climate in the 1700s. that is clearly not the case today, and rural america has the senate to over-represent them already.
it would be less important if the federal government didn't literally have their hands in ****ing everything, and voting repub or democrat will do **** all to change that
|
I agree, extrapolating our current results on a different system is incorrect. I'm not sure he would have gained enough to outright win, but it would be a lot closed at a minimum. The same poll analysts who got it wrong now take a different scenario and act as the end all be all arbiter in the 'ah hah, popular vote is what would have made us right'.
The overexposure stems from the ridiculous state lines we have originating from sea to sea grants and a division of North and south territories based on keeping slavery. Here in new York a dozen or so towns wrote a letter to the governor demanding to be allowed to frack or to allow their secession to pennsylvania. What's wrong with a town, county, gravitating towards a state if done by popular referendum? How else are the lines supposed to ever change?
Most of our issues from the middle east to home stem from the arbitrary nature in which we have divideo ourselves. Actually not arbitrary, just the age old idea of territory & people = power, thowe who already have it will fight for more even if they split people (kurds) and natural infrastructure systems (the ohio river) into fragmented and competing interests.
|
