[nmfisher]

> You realize Trump lost the popular vote right?

I am well aware, but that has nothing to do with the almost half of eligible voters who didn't vote at all. Californians who didn't vote in 2016 (~9m) far outnumber Hillary's margin over Trump (~4.3m). There's only "no point voting for president in California" because 9m Californians don't vote. That's nothing to do with "the system", that's a choice that every single one of those 9m voters is making.

Which brings me back to my original point, which is that voter apathy exacerbates the influence of gerrymandering and campaign spending in winning elections.

[JSavageOne]

> If you live in California or New York, there's basically no point in voting for president because there's such a large Democratic majority and it's winner-take-all.

Winner-take-all in any state that leans predominantly in one direction means that your vote doesn't matter. Unless those 9 million people happened to all be of the Republican party (extremely unlikely), it wouldn't have made any difference had they voted or not. Winner-take-all means all the delegates go to the winner.

It has everything to do with the system. Instead of just preaching that people should vote, maybe take a look at why they aren't. Maybe some don't because they can't get off work and unlike many other countries, election day isn't a national holiday. Or maybe because they don't feel like it makes a difference. If you don't live in a swing state, then one is right to feel like their presidential vote doesn't make a difference because as I just explained, it doesn't, and it shouldn't be that way.

[kelnos]

> Unless those 9 million people happened to all be of the Republican party (extremely unlikely), it wouldn't have made any difference had they voted or not.

Perhaps if more people voted in places like CA, the discrepancy between the popular vote and the actual winning candidate would be shown to be so absurd that we could actually get a movement going to successfully change how we elect our leaders.

Then again, it's possible (likely?) that would be matched by more people in red states voting such that the margins would end up the same.

[jyrkesh]

As someone in predominantly blue state, I make a point to vote 3rd party. 15% of the popular votes means they get to be in the debates. At least it's something....

[ALittleLight]

What makes you think non-voters would vote much differently than voters? To me it seems like voting is something like a survey, and we have about fifty percent of the population responding. If all non-voters voted, I'd expect roughly equal electoral results.

Of course, you might mean that you just want the half of non-voters who agree with you to vote, but that's a different thing.