Decision 2016

[dok]

Originally Posted by Raider30

Except it wasn't a 'swath' it was California. An 'extreme' margin of 60% in California is 3.5million votes and a 69% margin of victory in West Virginia is 300k votes. It's not apples to apples. When you can win one states vote and have it equal approximately 14 other states how can anyone even argue that California doesn't hold a disproportionate amount of power in a popular election?

Because every vote would count the same.

How is counting each individual vote as one vote "disproportionate"? It's really odd to think that. The total voting power of California would be proportional to the number of voters in California. Seriously, take a step back and think about what "proportional" and "disproportionate" actually mean.

Originally Posted by Raider30

And a win for anyone requires lots of votes from other places, obviously Hillary doesn't win JUST from California but I thought the whole discussion in this tread about the EC was pointing out how it makes votes disproportionately count.

Yes, that, along with pointing out that the EC does not consistently prevent regionalism, or favor rural voters, or any of the other stuff we hear to try to justify it.

Originally Posted by Raider30

Would this even be a discussion if Trump had lost MI, PA, WI, and OH for 64 votes but had won CA and WA for 67? I doubt it or at least it wouldn't have carried on for quite so long.

Oh, sure it would. It's not the population of the individual swing states that matter, it's that there was a popular vote/electoral vote divide. That's what drives these discussions to the fore.

Nobody cared that the Electoral College strongly favored Barack Obama both years, because he won the popular vote too. the EC being slanted towards him just kept the EC from being close. Similarly, nobody cared when the EC favored Kerry, because GWB won by enough to overcome his Electoral College disadvantage.

People only care about the Electoral College when it differs from the popular vote. This makes sense, because we all intuitively understand that the popular vote means something. There's a reason why we use it to decide every other election, after all.

Originally Posted by Raider30

Or perhaps if the situation were reversed and Trump won the popular vote but lost the EC? Again I doubt it, or at least it wouldn't have carried on for quite so long(except for maybe Trump himself would have complained vociferously I think we can all agree.

Oh, hahahaha.

No, there would be super loud complaints. They might be tempered slightly when coming from those who had argued the opposite way 16 years ago, but by and large it would be the same story. If anything Trump would make it even louder. He had been priming his supporters to protest the election as "rigged", after all, until he won. It would be easy for him to fit the EC into that narrative.