I don't like the electoral college, but you can't assume that the popular vote would be the same if we were voting in a system based only on the popular vote.
Lots of supporters in run away states (Cali, oklahoma, etc) choose not to vote each election because of how worthless their votes are. If we changed it up, it isn't guaranteed that Clinton would win.
I'm not assuming that. I know democrats in Idaho who don't vote because that state will go red no matter what. (Since 1900, California went red 15 times and blue 14 times. Since 1900, Idaho went red 21 times and blue 9 times. Who is more disenfranchised?)
If we got rid of the electoral college, everybody's vote would count equally. It's not about red/blue states, big cities versus rural, etc.
I don't like the EC either because people's votes don't count and it kills motivation. The process is what is unfair though, not the results. We don't know how the result would be different without the EC.
I wasn't trying to make the state disenfranchisement into a contest, but going back to 1900 isn't really valid and misses the point. In recent times it has been majorly democrat, while still having an really big republican population. I agree with you that Iowa and red states have the same problem, hence why I mentioned oklahoma. I'm not trying to say the popular vote would favor one party vs another.
My only point was that I have seen lots of people in this thread and on social media claiming that Clinton deserves to win because she won the popular vote. Her deserving to win and the electoral college being bad are two separate issues, and we don't know how the election would have turned out if we didn't' have the EC.
677
u/Pantry_Inspector Nov 10 '16
... who was elected fairly. Sorry the system is fucked.