The popular vote arguments are meaningless
Matt Bruenig

Agree with the article’s sentiment, fully, but…

Under the current rules, the gameplay is supposed to be oriented around winning key states…

It’s not “supposed to be oriented around winning key states”. The appearance that it is all about winning a few key states for the electoral college win, versus wining a few key CITIES for the popular vote win simply arises out of the fact that many states are decidedly Democrat or Republican in any given campaign year, and normally don’t need to be campaigned in very much. The Trump vs. Hillary campaign shook that up quite a bit (as to which states became the focus and were turned). But still, there were a few correct states to campaign in for the electoral college win, and Trump’s choices were far more insightful than Hillary’s. This has not been discussed much in the media, since it seems that the media is intent on creating a narrative that Trump and his people, and all those who supported him, are stupid and voted stupidly.

The electoral college system is oriented around giving all states a voice in the election. In practice, this often has meant that only a few states need to be focused on, but notice that with the electoral college system, it is often not the same states throughout the years. With a popular vote system, it would always be the few most-populist cities until the end of time or the end of the US, which would come first, and a lot sooner, when the few largest cities began to exercise the tyranny of the majority over the other 47 or so states. The electoral college is a unique feature of a smartly-designed republic.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.