• Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      1 month ago

      Which would be replaced with “Can the Democrat win California by a large enough margin?”

      Which was literally the case when people complain about Clinton winning the popular vote in 2016 - across the 49 states that aren’t California more people voted for Trump, but she won California by such a large margin that she won the popular vote because of California alone. Same thing in 2000, where Gore’s popular vote lead was smaller than his margin in CA.

      • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Oh jeeeeez, maybe republicans would have to have real policies that appeal to a majority of Americans, instead of dipshit authoritarian policies that only enrich the already rich and take rights away while mainly pandering to racists in the population at large.

        The electoral college is the major reason why the republicans have gone absolutely bugfuck, because they can win with a minority of votes, allowing them to be as undemocratic as they want to be, knowing they have a barely large enough base to squeak through in all the right spots.

        And considering the results of the bush and trump presidencies, you’re making the argument against the electoral college, because their two picks objectively made the country worse.

        • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          1 month ago

          FYI Hillary did not win the popular vote just because of California

          Yes, she did. That there are other combinations of states that she won that combine to have a similar total margin doesn’t change that her national margin was smaller than her margin in California. And that’s the crux of the argument Snopes makes - she won the national popular vote by 2,833,220 and sure she won California by 4,269,978 votes but there are other states she won that if added together had a combined margin in her favor of more than 2,833,220 votes and also just her California votes alone wouldn’t be enough to exceed Trump’s vote count nationwide so it doesn’t count.

          Which is…kinda ridiculous? It’s a big stretch for a frankly kinda dumb claim.

          • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 month ago

            Also, what is wrong with only winning California, anyway? California represents the broad spectrum of a modern America and it has its rural areas as well. It is easy to argue that it is our most important state, too.

            What people in California want should matter even if it overrides smaller red states - since they will likely only hold us back anyway.

      • Stern@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 month ago

        Which would be replaced with “Can the Democrat win California by a large enough margin?”

        If it’s going to be fucked either way I’d rather at least have it be fucked in a way where every vote counts the same rather then a Wyoming vote being worth like 4 times a California vote owing to the house of representatives population being limited which means Californians aren’t being properly represented in the house.

        • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          California is actually about middle of the pack for the House, currently. What skews the electoral college is that eveb the smallest states still get two Senators and a representative, and thus 3 electors.

          The states that are least represented in the House tend to be ones that have 1 or 2 Reps and are very close to getting one more. Like Delaware, Idaho or WV. All of which are over 895k people per Rep. Most states are somewhere in the 700s.

      • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 month ago

        Okay, that’s just fine with me. California is arguably our most important state and has a huge population. So of course winning there should matter. This is not hard.

        • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Winning there matters currently. More than any other state. It’s just everyone assumes the Dems are going to win it so it’s less of a big deal because depending on your party it’s either a given or a lost cause.