• Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    What does that even mean? What does it have to do with the fact that she would have won if the president, who serves the nation was elected by a national popular vote rather that one which weights Montana and Massachusetts equally?

    • Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      Because, believe it or not, keeping Hillary from winning is not why the Electoral College exists.

      One of the reasons the United States has been the breadbasket of the world is because our government has HAD to account for the interests of underpopulated agrarian areas that otherwise would be ignored because they wouldn’t get ELECTED otherwise. Minnesota, Nebraska, and Iowa are IMPORTANT in elections. So we take care of our farmers.

      Funny the way that works, isn’t it?

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        Our farmers are not taken care of by their senators and congresspeople so they need to be artificially weighed in favor of when it comes to the chief executive? I’m sorry, that’s just silly.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 days ago

            You’re right. We don’t agree. I don’t think giving a farmer a vote more powerful than a city dweller’s when it comes to who should run the entire nation is ludicrous. Making up for a state’s small population is what the senate is for.

            Everyone’s vote for president should be counted equally.