7 ms·

If the Presidential vote was decided on popular totals then this stat would mean something. Everyone knows the rules going in.

• lostdog 4y ago
  The crown was passed down by primogeniture. Everyone knew the rules going in, so it was fair and democratic.
• sandworm101 4y ago
  Exactly. Everyone must know and accept that some people's votes are worth more than others. Whether it is for a senator in Iowa, or for the electoral college that selects the president, the people in some areas of the country are allotted more power than those in others. It has always been that way and so shall it remain. Anyone not happy with the power allotted their vote is free to up stakes and move somewhere where votes are worth more, from California to Iowa or New York to New Hampshire.
• giaour 4y ago
  Before 2000, it was an interesting thought experiment but dismissed as highly unlikely that a president could technically win office without winning the popular vote. Republicans (but also some purist democrats) were apoplectic when Bill Clinton took office with an electoral majority and a mere popular plurality in 1992. The ground shifted has shifted around the rules many times in the past, but the current rural vs urban divide of the two parties combined with the majority of Americans living in urban and suburban areas has led to some really distorted and unintended outcomes of the rules.
• chimprich 4y ago
  > Everyone knows the rules going in. Does knowing that a system is undemocratic make it more democratic in some way?