No single city, no group of cities has that population. The TOP 10 cities in the US have a combined population of 28 million. Out of 328. That’s roughly 8% of the population.
If you add up EVERY SINGLE CITY with more than 100,000 people in it (Which is 311 cities), that’s still only 94 million. 28% of the US population.
So this idea that the popular vote would give power to just a few cities isn’t supported by the facts.
Also, people aren’t worried about the urban vote. They are worried about the “urban” vote.
Also, yes.
What you all are advocating would make things incredibly worse. It would concentrate power uniformity along the seaboards. The states you’re complaining about are called battlegrounds. The reason they’re so active is because they represent the middle, they’re where the debate is happening. If it wasn’t for this fact every single event would happen in Southern California, the NYC metroplex, a few events in Texas and a few in Florida. Nothing else would matter. And your statistics are old and bullshit quite frankly. I know we had campaign stops in Kentucky and you have it marked as “0”. You want a government that can crush opposition if you want mob rule. Just be honest about it instead of making specious arguments tinged with racist bullshit.
My population stats are from the most recent census and my stats on campaigning are from 2016. If you disagree with them, prove it with your own sources.
My way would concentrate power with the most people. It means each individuals vote should have equal power, regardless of where they live. “Each person gets an equal vote” is hardly mob rule
Tell me why you think that a banker in Ohio should have more political power than a farmer in California or a teacher in Texas.
The data compiled by Statista below debunks your claim. There are over 95,000,000 people living in the top 12 metroplexes. These are geographic concentrations of people which is the point you’re trying to avoid. As I noted these and the others on the list are concentrated on the seaboards with few exceptions.
All of flyover country could be ignored. What you’re suggesting would make things worse when all a candidate would require for victory is New York, California and pieces of Florida and Texas to win. Policy would be skewed to serve those areas which it already is.
Our local floodplain was recently adjusted by FEMA without legitimate reason. It’s a poorly kept secret that we’re subsidizing the reconstruction of the hurricane alley in Florida and Texas with our premium hikes. Flyover voices have to matter or we don’t have a nation. I’m of the mind we should break it up tbh. California, like Illinois and many of these states, will implode due to fiscal mismanagement soon enough as it is.
The primary season is spent by candidates securing their base support, you conveniently leave that out of your screed and as I previously noted the battleground states are where there’s actual debate. The election is not in doubt in most states which is why they’re not visited a thousand times between the nomination in June and the election in November. Like the metroplexes, include primary season if you want to have an honest conversation.
Even by your numbers, the top 12 metroplexes are only 28% Of the population! So no, you couldn’t just win those cities and take the popular vote.
And again, right now, most of fly over country IS ignored. Unless you are a swing state, you get ignored. We have the data on this.
And you have failed to answer my key question: why should some citizens have more voting power than others? Why should a banker in Montana or a CEO in Ohio get more voting power than a Farmer in California or a Teacher in Texas?
Even by “my” numbers? Those are population numbers you attributed to 311 nameless cities attempting to frame a ridiculous argument.
I just told you flyover country is not ignored and that you have to include primary season which consists of the first 6 months of the election year.
As to your key question, I’ve already answered it. It is minority protection which was the intention of the electoral college. It doesn’t have anything to do with your tycoon in Montana and your poor farmer in LA. California is still weighted, NYC is still weighted.
You conveniently ignore the nuance of safe states vs. swing states to claim states are being ignored. Swing states are constantly changing. Bush ended up winning his first term because he flipped 4 college votes in WVA, a state the Dems thought was safe. Clinton ignoring the rust belt cost her the 2016 race.
The college is intended to insure that there is a debate and that people with interests that are dissimilar are not ignored.
Weaken the federal government and then maybe others will come around to your dishonest arguments. As long as people like you advocate for centralized power, expect resistance to your insistence that barriers to it need to be removed. As I previously stated, if you want to end the college start advocating for the breakup of the US. That’s what should happen. Don’t expect people who would be enslaved by you to support you.
Pure democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding on what’s for dinner. I was not surprised to learn you’re a teacher fwiw.
Proponents of the popular vote are really the most dishonest frauds. A quick glance at the most populated counties and how they voted will show you what a tyrannical concept the popular vote is.
If you want to place all the democratic power into a handful of heavily populated area of the country, that will be the time when the rest of the country should be able to opt out of this crooked compact.
Obscure Fandoms 