The office of the President is the only office that represents every, single American... so why doesn’t the vote of every, single American count in that election?
A
https://twitter.com/cmclymer/status/1322870150941626375
A

The “Electoral College” (as it came to be called, but is not mentioned by that name in the Constitution) worked together w the 3/5ths Comprise to do exactly as intended— use enslaved people for the purposes of apportionment, but not let THEM actually vote.
We got rid of the 3/5ths Compromise w the 14th Amendment, but the EC remains.
It gives EVERY state 3 EC votes to start, regardless of population. (2 Senators + at least one Rep.)
So, bc of their tiny pop 1 person in Wyoming is the functional equivalent of 4 in California.
It gives EVERY state 3 EC votes to start, regardless of population. (2 Senators + at least one Rep.)
So, bc of their tiny pop 1 person in Wyoming is the functional equivalent of 4 in California.
Emphasis on it gives STATES these votes— not people.
It’s basing vote eligibility on geography. A land mass is represented (or over-represented in the case of Wyoming), not actual voting humans.
It’s basing vote eligibility on geography. A land mass is represented (or over-represented in the case of Wyoming), not actual voting humans.
So, “small states” doesn’t mean small like Rhode Island— it can mean huge, but tiny population.
Arguing “small states” wouldn’t count if we had a national popular vote is absurd (it’s meant to manipulate & garner sympathy) but it really means: those votes wouldn’t count MORE.
Arguing “small states” wouldn’t count if we had a national popular vote is absurd (it’s meant to manipulate & garner sympathy) but it really means: those votes wouldn’t count MORE.
Would candidates only spend time in NYC & LA if we got rid of the Electoral College?
No, those places are big but not enough votes to win the popular vote— not even close.
(Tho, those are places where the most PEOPLE live (land & cows are not citizens— people are) so why not??)
No, those places are big but not enough votes to win the popular vote— not even close.
(Tho, those are places where the most PEOPLE live (land & cows are not citizens— people are) so why not??)
Right now bc the EC is a winner-take-all system (whoever wins a state gets all EC votes & all other votes are thrown in the
) & a few states might go either way— states like Iowa get all the visits, attention, campaigning etc.
Des Moines pop: 216,853
NYC pop: 8.399Â million

Des Moines pop: 216,853
NYC pop: 8.399Â million
The good news is— we can abolish the Electoral College & WITHOUT having to change the Constitution!
States get to decide how to spend their votes.
The @NatlPopularVote is an agreement among a group of states to give all their electoral votes to the winner of the POPULAR vote.
States get to decide how to spend their votes.
The @NatlPopularVote is an agreement among a group of states to give all their electoral votes to the winner of the POPULAR vote.
The @NatlPopularVote has ALREADY been adopted by 15 states & DC!
This represents a combined 196 electoral votes, which is 73% of the 270 Electoral College votes needed to let the person who wins the national popular vote ACTUALLY WIN!
Only 74 votes (in any state combo) to go!
This represents a combined 196 electoral votes, which is 73% of the 270 Electoral College votes needed to let the person who wins the national popular vote ACTUALLY WIN!
Only 74 votes (in any state combo) to go!
TO BE CLEAR no matter where you live— you should vote, Electoral College be damned!
There are many important down-ballot races AND we’ll never know who the winner of the popular vote is unless we all vote in EVERY state.
That’s the best argument for @NatlPopularVote!

There are many important down-ballot races AND we’ll never know who the winner of the popular vote is unless we all vote in EVERY state.
That’s the best argument for @NatlPopularVote!