04-04-2019, 03:19 AM
In the 2016 presidential election Clinton received 62% of the popular vote, but 100% of the Electoral College delegate vote from our state.
In California, Clinton also received 62% of the popular vote, and 100% of the Electoral College vote.
For a large state such as California, doesn’t that give the winning candidate disproportionate influence over the election far beyond the vote count?
In the case of a small state such as Hawaii, if hypothetically the popular vote was too close to call, wouldn’t the candidates be out here until the last moment, stumping for every single vote if the election decided by popular vote? Wouldn’t news organizations wait until Hawaii polls closed to announce the election results, because our individual votes actually mattered?
In California, Clinton also received 62% of the popular vote, and 100% of the Electoral College vote.
For a large state such as California, doesn’t that give the winning candidate disproportionate influence over the election far beyond the vote count?
In the case of a small state such as Hawaii, if hypothetically the popular vote was too close to call, wouldn’t the candidates be out here until the last moment, stumping for every single vote if the election decided by popular vote? Wouldn’t news organizations wait until Hawaii polls closed to announce the election results, because our individual votes actually mattered?
"I'm at that stage in life where I stay out of discussions. Even if you say 1+1=5, you're right - have fun." - Keanu Reeves