you know the story about the two wolves and the sheep, right?

that's what your understanding of democracy comes off as

It does not allow someone with fewer total electoral votes to win.

well... that would be by definition impossible to happen...

no, it allows someone to win 55 votes with one state when they should have won only 33 in that state

this is how we get the swing states.

They should have won whatever that state's election law says they should have won.

yeah... and the state election laws are stupid 😄

what a dumb argument for why we should change the rules

"this is why the rules are broken"
"yeah but that is the rules"

Calling everything stupid isn't an argument.

okay, cool. ignore what i posted way before then claim i have no argument

I was referring to I AM STUPID.

i mean... i told you why i think it's stupid but hey... the rules are the rules, right.

Each state makes its own election rules. What's stupid for you isn't necessarily stupid for them.

Cali: 55 electors
Texas: 38 electors

win 60% in cali, you win 55 electors
60% of 55 is about 33.

win only 20% in Texas, you win 0 electors
20% of 38 is about 8.

IF you win 60% in cali, but only 20% in texas, you get 55 electors and win 55 vs 38. That is how it currently works. We are saying it shouldn't. instead winning 60% in cali should get you 33 electors, and winning 20% in texas wins you 8. That leaves you with 41 electors. 41 to 54.

so the argument is not "it's stupid", that is the conclusion. the argument is that the current system makes votes in non-swing states worthless because they do not have any impact on the outcome of the election.

the change means the percent you win in each state matters more than just winning the state itself.

No vote is worthless so long as each state's election counts every vote.

except if you voted in call, you might as well not have voted

same in texas even in that example

what impact on the outcome of the election did the votes for trump in california have then?

what would have changed if every single republican voter had stayed home?

They were counted directly in California's election.

tell me, in the example above, that the change didn't make each vote in each state more valuable than before?

You can ask that of any voting minority after any election.

only if you have a winner takes all system

so what is your problem with making your individual vote more valuable?

and yes, the presidential election is winner takes all. my point is that the winner takes all part comes too early.

No state is required to have a winner-take-all election for its electors. Most do simply because the electoral vote is pro forma after the popular vote for the POTUS candidates themselves.

yes

and the argument is they shouldn't

not that they can't

Shouldn't what?

shouldn't do winner takes all

as it devalues the individuals vote

and makes the election less representative of the nation

So they should put the electors on the ballot instead of the POTUS candidates?

thats an idea.

some places do that i think

but still, if there are no electors that would vote your way, what would that do?