Why the American Left failed, and what can we learn from it.

[Machismo]

Every vote is just as valuable.
On a state level, every vote made by the population is worth the exact same when it comes to deciding the electors.
On the union level, every electoral vote is worth exactly the same when it comes to choosing the president.

If you still don't understand I recommend reading a civics 101 book. You would be right if people could directly vote for a president. But they can't. You always vote for your electors.

Every vote is not as valuable. Every vote in Wyoming is the same, but they are all worth more than every vote in Texas. As for the electors, they are weighted towards states with lower populations. So, they are not equal at the national level. Wyoming has 3 electors for 585,000 people, whereas Texas has 38 electors for 28,000,000 people. That's not equivalent, not even close.

I understand exactly why they did it. I'm aware of the compromise made. That in no way undermines the claim that it is forced inequality. The math is quite simple to prove it, and it's right there. Every elector in Wyoming is worth 195,000 people. Every elector in Texas is worth about 736,000 people.

[Thage]

Why should 3 states be allowed to decide the outcome, ignoring the other 47?
The voting system is based on both number of population, AND size of land. It's a compromise.

The problem is the winner-take-all nature. A state that's 49% v 51% has all its electoral votes handed to the winning candidate, which is hardly representative of the will of its populace (in this cast, a massive minority only a few thousand votes smaller than the majority are completely ignored). All it would really take to fix the Electoral College would be to divide up electoral votes per-state based on percentage of the popular vote--for example, in a state with 4 votes, if a candidate wins 75% of the election, he gets three and the other guy gets one. In a near-50/50 split, round off to the nearest even number and divide EC votes accordingly. All of a sudden you have electoral votes that mirror the national popular vote without placing all the power in California, New York, and Florida.

[Ivanstone]

In a union, you have to give everyone fair representation or you risk the whole thing falling apart. .

And how is the electoral system fair representation again? Is it fair for everyone or every state? Or both?

Keep in mind that the Senate also address unequal representation. A Californian elector is less valuable than a Wyoming elector. A Californian senator is much less valuable than a Wyoming Senator.

Furthermore, the original constitution was written for 13 states not 50. Those 50 states have populations that are determined not by culture or politics but by the the value of the land within its borders. California has the large population it does because its inherently more valuable than Wyoming.

[Wyrt]

It is fair since you have to consider the good of every state, instead of just focusing on the 4-5 largest. The fact that candidates don't just campaign in California and ignore the other states is the proof that it's fair.

You realize the electoral college doesn't do that right? The candidates just focus on the battle ground states and ignore the rest. Does it make sense for the largest state to always be ignored in presidential elections?

[Gestopft]

It is fair since you have to consider the good of every state, instead of just focusing on the 4-5 largest. The fact that candidates don't just campaign in California and ignore the other states is the proof that it's fair.

It would take about 11 states to equal half of the population, so the myth that politicians could just focus on Cali and a couple other large states is simply false. Secondly, a candidate would have to win ALL of the votes in those 11-ish states to win an election, which would simply never happen, as no state is a hive mind. But for argument's sake let's assume now that a candidate just goes for larger states, and spends the majority of their time in those 11 states, ignoring the small ones. Is this any better than it is currently?

Not really. Candidates currently don't focus their attention all around the country once the general election comes: they campaign heavily in a small number of swing states while mostly ignoring the majority of "safe" states outside of fundraising. There is very little reason for a candidate of either party to visit Alabama, Mississippi, Washington, or California, or tens of other states- so they don't. This fear that we would have California/New York elections a) simply isn't true and b) is ignorant of that fact that we already have Penn/Ohio/Florida elections (or whatever the largest swing states are currently).

[God Save The King]

They didn't fail, they got more votes than the opponent.

And that is even after the opponent tried to appeal to white supremacists and other deplorables.
The right now regrets it. They will lose all support in 2018.

Pretty much this.

It's hard to say the 'left' failed, when they got almost 3 million more votes than the right, just not in the 'correct' places. The left failed during the 80s, when Reagan swept the country with nearly all the electoral college votes, and 15%+ margins in the popular vote.

Winning on a technicality in the system, after losing the vote by 2%+ and 2.5m+ ballots is not 'failed'.

I'll concede in the local races, State Legislature, Governorship, House of Reps*, they left has lost a lot of their foundation. Nationally, it's still strong. The Senate is pretty unbalanced, and it's amazing the left even is close to 50 seats.


*Partially due to Gerrymandering: see 2012 congressional elections

[Mormolyce]

The Left didn't abolish slavery :thinking:

They sure did. The progressive Republican Party abolished slavery despite the resistance of the conservative Democrats.