Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by TheDong 398 days ago
If you live in a non-swing state, like California, not moving to a swing state is effectively a vote for whoever wins.

Voting in california and not voting in california are statistically identical, so if you don't move to a swing state, you're just voting for whoever wins, right?
1 comments
dgfitz 398 days ago
Thank you for phrasing this as such. Every time this topic comes up I want to try and make this point, I wish it were more prominent.

"You voted for DJT, you're an evil person!" "Well actually, let me explain to you how the electoral college works..."

link
ty6853 398 days ago
The electoral college doesn't even have to vote for what their state wanted. They can go rogue, and possibly end up with criminal charges in a few states, but the vote still stands.

It has certainly happened before.

link
dgfitz 397 days ago
No, correct, they do not.

Until an election is decided by rogue delegates, this is a frivolous point.

If it ever does happen, it makes the whole exercising of voting even more useless than it already is for states like CA, the vote truly means nothing as opposed to just being symbolically useless.

So, the EC absolutely matters, and it’ll matter right up until it doesn’t. At which point, who tf cares?

link
madeofpalk 398 days ago
How can voting for someone ever not be a sign that you support them over the other options?

How does the electoral college system work in a way that encourages you to vote for someone you don't want?

link
ty6853 398 days ago
Because voting third party is also a vote for whoever wins, using this logic. Libertarians, Green, etc party voters constantly get accosted over this.

You have two top candidates, by voting for a third party you are deferring to the popular vote on the top two and 'subtracting' a vote from your favorite of the top two.

https://i.redd.it/qdg4kntdh3jc1.jpeg

link