Comments by "Hobbs" (@hobbso8508) on "CNBC Television"
channel.
-
16
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@greensandbeansgaming1358 Just wanted to weigh in on your comments about NY and California deciding presidents every year.
First of all these 2 states have less than 17% the total US population. You may as well argue that Texas and Florida decide our elections as the populations are roughly equal.
This way of thinking also assumes that members of those states will also vote the same way. As the previous comment noted, upstate NY frequently votes very differently to NYC. Due to this fact, in an electoral college system their votes are ignored, however in a popular vote count they will be added just like everyone else. Their vote goes from being worthless to counting.
A more open voting system like this would also force presidential candidates to pay closer attention to states that they would usually win or lose without much contest. As it stands, Democrats and Republicans never bother with California, Alabama, Washington or Mississippi, with the election decided by usually less than half the states going 1 way or the other. If ever single vote is counted equally, suddenly Republicans can appeal to Californians, and Democrats to Alabamans.
Just as you say, different states have different cultures, but so do individuals within states. Surely they should be heard as well. Should we consider voters in smaller states more heavily just because they are in a small state? Why do the people of Wyoming matter more than 3 times more than Californians? Because there are less of them? So because I like in a high populace state I'm now less of a person?
A popular vote is the only fair way to hold an election. There is a reason the US is considered a flawed democracy.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2