LA se Karachi
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2016
- Messages
- 1,672
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
you can't deny the fact California heavily voted for Clinton over Trump 4 million votes more, and the biggest red state Texas only gave 1 million more votes to Trump over Clinton.
And, you can't deny the fact that Hilary received far more votes in states that she lost than in California. In the popular vote, everyone's vote counts the same.
Again, your reasoning makes no sense. You could exclude New York, Illinois, and Massachusetts (or some other combination of states) and say the exact same thing. We have the largest population of any state, by far. So, it's not surprising that we produced the largest margin for her. It makes no sense to single out California. This game could go on forever.
my point is if the popular vote mattered Trump would have campaigned more in these states.
He probably would have. But that definitely does not mean that he would have won. In fact, he would likely have lost by a wider margin. Large "blue" states like California and New York tend to have relatively low turnout rates because voters there know that their vote won't really make a difference. Shifting to a popular vote system would change that.
Voters tend to be older, whiter, and wealthier---groups that favor Republicans. Non-voters tend to be younger, more ethnically diverse, and less wealthy---groups that favor Democrats. Studies have been conducted on non-voters, and they have found if they voted, they would favor Democrats by a fair margin.