Read on Twitter
One argument people make in defense of the electoral college is that the EC forces candidates to campaign in *all* states, not just the big ones.
But the EC actually incentivizes a system where candidates *ignore* the big states entirely.
A 2016 GIF from 538:
But the EC actually incentivizes a system where candidates *ignore* the big states entirely.
A 2016 GIF from 538:
In 2015, Scott Walker was interviewed by @JohnJHarwood about running for president in 2016.
Harwood asked Walker about his heavy reliance on white voters to win in Wisconsin and how that doesn't necessarily translate to a national campaign.
Walker's answer has stuck with me:
Harwood asked Walker about his heavy reliance on white voters to win in Wisconsin and how that doesn't necessarily translate to a national campaign.
Walker's answer has stuck with me:
Harwood said Reagan's 1980 electorate was 88% white, identical to Walker's 2014 Wisconsin gov win.
JH: That is not a winning formula, nationally because the national electorate is not 88% white.
SW: The nation as a whole is not going to elect the next president. 12 states are.
JH: That is not a winning formula, nationally because the national electorate is not 88% white.
SW: The nation as a whole is not going to elect the next president. 12 states are.
He accurately described the system we have. Some people might look at that and say, "Hey, pretty messed up that the majority of states just don't matter because they're pretty much a given, and the ones that do don't represent the whole country very well."
But not Walker.
But not Walker.
As the Trump era has shown, the electoral college allows a president to just flat-out ignore states where he has no chance of winning. Remember how Kushner scrapped a national testing plan because the virus was mostly in blue states? https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/07/how-jared-kushners-secret-testing-plan-went-poof-into-thin-air
Or when Kushner reportedly said that New Yorkers were "going to suffer and that's their problem?"
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/09/jared-kushner-let-the-markets-decide-covid-19-fate
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/09/jared-kushner-let-the-markets-decide-covid-19-fate
If Trump had to try to get as many votes as he could in New York instead of being able to ignore it because of the winner-take-all EC system, do you think this would have still been his closing pitch?
If Trump had to concern himself with how many votes he'd get in California, do you think he still would have played games with federal aid to fight forest fires? https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/10/16/trump-rejects-california-disaster-wildfires/
The Electoral College removes the political cost of ignoring entire states. Most presidents don't lean into that as hard as Trump did, though.
Like come on, this is sociopathic https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Rageful-Trump-wanted-to-cut-off-California-15490529.php
Anyway, tl;dr the Electoral College is bad and people who support it should just be honest about why they support it and say that it's because they know Republicans couldn't win a popular vote because they don't give a crap about more than half the country.
None of their arguments actually hold up. They just need to admit that they support it because it helps them win.
