You don’t vote for president directly in the US, you vote for your state to send its votes to that ticket.
Nothing anybody will explain here will be as good as a quick video. I suggest searching your question into your search engine of choice
This is why some voters feel disenfranchised from voting. Republicans in NY and CA may as well not exist. Democrats in Idaho, and Iowa may as well not exist. Because of the reasons you said.
That being said, Texas democrats need to get off their asses. Their state is only republican because of nonźvoters. Some states it’s hopeless, and then there’s Texas, which absolutely SHOULD at the very least be a swing state. But it’s not.
It’s worth remembering that voter apathy is part of the process. The status quo is built on the idea that people don’t change, but people change every day. If Democrats started showing up in Idaho, the way Republicans do in California, they’d get a lot more attention. The GOP spends a lot of time and effort buttering bread in Orange County, because even though they can’t win a statewide election, they will provide constant pressure on the state and federal government (not to mention all the money).
Pressure on the state to do what exactly?
Maintain the status quo.
https://calmatters.org/politics/2024/10/californa-veto-overrides/
tldr the electoral college is bullshit that has run its course.
Every state gets a minimum of three electoral college votes. Those votes are based on the amount of senators and representatives that state has, Two senators plus a minimum of one representative. Ostensibly this should make the electoral college a simple middleman for the popular vote. Two things prevent this:
- Nearly every state (48/50) does winner takes all for their votes, so even if the state goes 51/49 the winner gets all the electotal votes for that state, which in places like California and Texas is a huge swing.
- The house was limited in size in 1909, which in turn has given the senate more weight in the electoral college division. 20% of electoral votes are due to the senate, giving smaller states far more electoral weight then they should have.
If the house was properly set by population (lets pretend 1 rep per 100k population.) then somewhere like California would have approx. 400 house members (~40 million pop.), 2 senators, and 402 electoral college votes. Wyoming, with ~600,000 population, would have 6 house members, 2 senators, and 8 electoral votes. Currently those two are at 54 and 3 electoral votes respectively. A ratio of 50:1 in that projection vs. 18:1in reality.
Compound the aforemention representation issues by a bunch of other states that also get that unfair representation, and we end out with a system where the election gets decided by a couple purple states even if the Dem candidate wins the popular vote.
I love this conversation. I came in expecting a dumpster fire and saw respectful thoughtful responses.
Simply put if the population centers alone are considered cities decide elections.
It was deemed unfair to let that be because the rural/farm areas would have no say…so they over corrected and created a system which leaves a few generally smaller states decide.
So Iowa and New Hanpshire have undue influence on primaries and hence the candidates nominated and PA, GA, WI, MI and perhaps FL decide the election (and in FL on again the higher population in citities are out-influenced by the far less populous but more numerous rural counties in the same way).
Basically good(ish) or perhaps cynical intentions and unintended consequences.
deleted by creator
