So let me get this straight
Republican logic:
If 50.1% of people vote for somebody, they don't win unless those 50.1% of people lived in more populous states?
I understand the Constitution but the notion that a vote in California counts more than a vote in Montana doesn't disturb the sh*t out of you guys?
It's much, much less ridiculous than the U.S. Senate.
Also, a vote in Montana counts for slightly more than a vote in California. Divide population by electoral votes.
I'm talking in terms of the amount of electoral votes up for grabs. California has 55, Montana has 3.
Realistically speaking, a vote in neither state matters because of national patterns meaning they're almost never going to be the deciding state.
I'm comfortable with the electoral college because, while it's not perfect, it recognizes that there's a margin of error in a two-person race and at the very least it focuses the scrutiny and attention on a limited number of states, which (again in theory) enables retail politicking and the control of fraud. You can theoretically win a narrow margin in the EC with a significant loss in the PV, but that would never happen. I think Gore winning the popular vote by 500,000 and losing the EC would have been ok if not for that fact that voting patterns and his totals indicates that by intended voters, he surely won Florida by a sizable margin (thousands or tens of thousands - look at discarded votes in Duval( and the electoral college by a decent margin as well. If he'd won by 300,000 votes but lost Florida by a non-contested margin, that would have been fine, because 300,000 is essentially a tie in a country of 140 million voters.
