|
|
|
|
|
|
by srj
2615 days ago
|
|
|
From what I recall being taught it was to get the smaller states on board. These weren't necessarily slave states (e.g. Rhode Island). It's been effective. If presidential elections were just driven by popular vote candidates would only campaign in the top population centers. Entire regions of the country would be ignored. |
|
|
This is definitely 100% false; this goes against the mathematical population distribution of the United States. The top 100 biggest cities in the United States combined only make up less than 20% of the population.
But even if it were true, it's not any different than the current status quo where candidates simply only campaign in "swing states," ignoring the vast majority of the rest of the Unites States. In fact, it would be better, because more Americans live in population centers than they do swing states.
https://youtu.be/7wC42HgLA4k?t=108
The other problems:
Many people who live in solidly blue or solidly red states don't even bother voting for president - they know their vote doesn't matter. I know this because I've literally heard people say it.
This it not even considering electoral college also entirely ignores 4 million Americans because they live in territories, not states.