Rustic
Diamond Member
- Oct 3, 2015
- 58,769
- 5,895
LolLolAbsolutely, Without the electoral college rural America has no voice in presidential elections... factI think Democrats need to pull this stick out of their asses and admit that they need to come up with a platform that is inclusive - that appeals to rural Americans as well.Does a majority of rural America benefit from the Electoral College?I think Democrats need to pull this stick out of their asses and admit that they need to come up with a platform that is inclusive - that appeals to rural Americans as well.Right now neither rural, nor suburban, nor urban voters have any voice in presidential elections unless they live in a "battleground" state.Absolutely, Without the electoral college rural America has no voice in presidential elections... fact
Changing the current winner-take-all method of apportioning EC ballots will give every voter a stake in determining who serves as POTUS.
Rural States Are Almost Entirely Ignored Under Current State-by-State System
"According to the 2010 census, the 10 states with the highest percentage of rural residents are
"However, none of the 10 most rural states were closely divided battleground states in either the 2012 or 2016 presidential election. Thus, none of these 10 states received any general-election campaign visits.
- Maine–61%
- Vermont–61%
- West Virginia–51%
- Mississippi–51%
- Montana–44%
- Arkansas–44%
- South Dakota43%
- Kentucky–42%
- Alabama–41%
- North Dakota–40%
"Moreover, only five states of the 25 most rural states received any general-election campaign visits during the 2012 and 2016 presidential election, namely New Hampshire (12th most rural), Iowa (the 13th most rural), North Carolina (the 16th most rural), Wisconsin (the 20th most rural), and Minnesota (the 25th most rural).
"In short, rural states are almost entirely ignored by the current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes."
Montana, North and South Dakota, Wyoming and Idaho. Don’t have the population to matter in a pure popular vote in presidential elections.
A city like San Francisco would have more power than all of those states in a pure popular vote.
That is why we need the electoral collegeSan Francisco has fewer than 900,000 residents, so how would its voters have more power than five states? What ever good reasons the Founders had for inflicting the EC on this country have long since evaporated. Today, a handful of "swing states" decide who becomes POTUS. In 2016 Trump and Clinton made more than 90% of their campaign stops in 11 states, nearly two-thirds of those stops took place in just four states. That's not even representative democracy.Lol
Montana, North and South Dakota, Wyoming and Idaho. Don’t have the population to matter in a pure popular vote in presidential elections.
A city like San Francisco would have more power than all of those states in a pure popular vote.
"The eight least populous states (i.e., those with three electoral votes each) together received just one general-election campaign visit in 2008, 2012, and 2016 combined.
"Meanwhile, the closely divided battleground state of Wisconsin (with about the same population as the eight smallest states combined) received 40 visits. Wisconsin received more attention despite having only 10 electoral votes -- compared to the total of 24 for the eight smallest states."
Small States Are Not Helped by Current System
Na, not really
The greater San Francisco area among several other cities around America has more votes than those states I listed in a pure popular vote.
A pure popular vote = mob rule