Sandy Clark, CGCS said: Heard a report yesterday that really shows he value of the electoral college. Press has made a big deal of Hillary winning the popular vote by over 3 million. Subtract out California and New York, just 2 states, and Trump wins the popular vote by 3 million. I think that shows how representative our system really is. I am not sure anyone, regardless of party, would want two states controlling every election if we just relied on the popular vote. Statistics can be made to provide nearly any result you want but it shows that 2 states could control every election if it were not for the representation created by the electoral college. That is much bigger news than Russians not impacting voting day but supposedly trying to influence the election.
I think this is a typical straw man argument, if anything, those two states should maybe have more of a say since they probably provide the most tax revenue to the US. Yet they are used as examples this election cycle as examples that their votes shouldn't count, to justify the election of Mr. Trump.
As I understand the main purpose of the Electoral College is, to provide a voice for all of the states. Yet in my opinion of the "Winner Take All" does basically allow a handful of states to decide our outcomes. In 2000 it was Florida, this year it was Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota. Usually Ohio is in there. While as I mentioned the Electorial College provides a voice for all states, if all states did similar to Nebraska and Maine and proportion their EC votes out based on percentages of the state's voters wishes, maybe it would encourage more voters to participate and it might even help break the gridlock by the two parties, allowing some of the 3rd party candidates to show some viability and maybe help them on the local levels. Would it have changed the outcomes of this election? Most likely not, unless it would have forced the Clinton campaign to run a smarter campaign and get out and visit more voters.
As it is set up now, both candidates skipped campaigning in states they knew they had won or lost before voting ever began, (or thought they had more of an advantage than they thought they did, just goes to show how flawed Ms. Clinton's campaign was). I remember candidate Obama coming to Springfield Missouri, even though he didn't stand a snowball's chance for our Electoral College votes, where we would elect a rock with an R next to it, before a living and breathing democrat) Maybe his visit helped in other Midwest states where the voting would have been closer, just look at counties in Minn, and Michigan that had voted for President Obama in 2012, and voted for Trump in 2016. Of course some of that was a smaller voter turnout, or from what I heard, in Michigan, where people voted on all other issues and voted for neither Presidential Candidate, in a larger number than the difference in the vote totals between them.
But I just want to keep pointing this out, because I keep hearing it, "If you take away California's votes, she doesn't win the popular vote totals" I'm tired of that, you are citizens just like the rest of us. Everyone's vote matters, no matter if we use the EC or not.
Just my two cents.
Mel