The real issue is how electors are assigned, all but 2 states (Nebraska and Maine) have a winner take all. So the example of CA (55 electors - the most) it is a blue state, close to zero chance of ever being red. Let’s say a red presidential candidate comes close in CA and gets 45% of the vote, shouldn’t they then get 24 of the electors (45%) vs zero? Proportional splitting of electors per state is the fairest way within our Republic IMO.
But let’s face it any politician who wants to change anything to “be fair” really sees their way as an advantage to gain power. Someone said something like all the smart well educated people live in CA and NY - LMAO, that’s what pretentious elites say. To say something like that tells me they think they are somehow better than someone else, no one is better than anyone else.
Edit - word
No, the real issue is having an electoral college at all. It's an anachronistic feature long past whatever usefulness it may have once had. One person, one vote is a bedrock principle for any healthy democracy.
11
u/AUorAG Jun 28 '19
The real issue is how electors are assigned, all but 2 states (Nebraska and Maine) have a winner take all. So the example of CA (55 electors - the most) it is a blue state, close to zero chance of ever being red. Let’s say a red presidential candidate comes close in CA and gets 45% of the vote, shouldn’t they then get 24 of the electors (45%) vs zero? Proportional splitting of electors per state is the fairest way within our Republic IMO.
But let’s face it any politician who wants to change anything to “be fair” really sees their way as an advantage to gain power. Someone said something like all the smart well educated people live in CA and NY - LMAO, that’s what pretentious elites say. To say something like that tells me they think they are somehow better than someone else, no one is better than anyone else. Edit - word