(01-28-2020 09:35 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 09:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 09:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 09:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  This debate highlights one of the downfalls of the EC, that a pretty sizable margin of votes can essentially be wiped out. But like most things, pros and cons exist.

Well, of the 2.9 million plurality margin in the 2016 presidential election, 4.9 million of it came from 2 states (CA 3.4 million and New York 1.5 million). So Trump won the popular vote plurality in the other 48 states plus DC by 2 million votes.

That is not a downfall, but rather the purpose of the EC, to ensure that one or two states don't drown out the rest.

A better, less biased way to evaluate the influence of outliers would be to remove outliers from both ends of the spectrum, not just one. My guess is that if you remove the outliers that went Republican, you'd be a lot closer to a 50/50 split.

Regardless, what you highlight is that smaller states hold more weight and drown out other voices, which is a distinctly and obvious downside to the EC. I mean, in order to make sure smaller states are heard, you inherently have to water down the voting power of larger states.

Hence why the EC isn't perfect. Why should Californian votes matter less than, say, Nebraskan votes? It's an imperfect system, but I don't think there is a perfect system out there that exists.

It is only a downside when you take a giant piss on the concept of state sovereignty. Which you seemingly really think is a decent idea when you start down the 'how unfair' mantra you invoke above.

No, it's a downside when you clearly see that a plurality of Americans did not vote for the person who won the election.

I have no issue if you want to argue that this downside is necessary to protect state rights, minority opinions, etc. But don't act all righteous and pretend that it isn't a downside of the current system. Christ on a cracker.