GalaxyFlyer wrote:Clinton’s vote margin was essentially won in California. Does anyone seriously want California voters decideding the Presidency? It is a FEDERAL system where the STATES get to decide matters. Read up on history, please.
It's interesting that California has to stomach having its power reduced to a fraction of what it's supposed to wield (relative to Wyoming), yet other smaller states can be allowed to exert their will on California.
For example: in the electoral college, California is about 10 votes shy of what it should get, relative to Wyoming (i.e. Wyoming is overrepresented while California is underrepresented). It takes the combined electoral college votes of MT (3), WY (3), ND (3), SD (3), AK (3), ID (4), UT (6), NE (5), AR(6), KS (6), MS (6), and OK (7) to match CA's 55 votes. But that also brings about the next problem with a "federal system": CA, with a population of about 1.5 times the combined population of these 12 states (as of the 2010 census), gets only 2 Senators whereas these 12 states supply 24 Senators. So somehow, CA is not allowed to determine the president and its 39M residents are isolated to its border (you know, because it's best if some Americans are considered Californians first and foremost), but has to sit back and allow these 24 Senators (combined with other states' delegation) to determine what CA is allowed to do or not do in the guise of federal laws.
This also brings us to the next issue with the electoral college. It's a very unlikely scenario, but to say that the electoral college allows for states to decide is a bit ludicrous. Cram everyone into California, leaving every other state with just 1 resident and the electoral college says CA decides the election (388 EC votes for CA vs 150 for the remaining states and DC). Keep making populous states even more populous and eventually it will be the more populous states that will decide the elections. TX continues gaining seats at the expense of smaller states (AL and WV are poised to lose a seat each, which will likely go to TX). For the first time in history, two states will have at least 40 EC votes, and if FL continues gaining seats it may very well be the third state to reach that magic number within the century at the expense of other states.
It doesn't bode well if all of them begin leaning one way. Under the current allocation, you can win the election with the 11 most populous states: CA, TX, FL, NY, PA, IL, OH, GA, NC, MI, and NJ. The only safe red states here are TX and GA; the blue states are CA, NY, IL, NJ, and PA and MI (if we consider 2016 to be an anomaly rather than a realignment). That leaves FL, OH, and NC as swing states. TX and GA show signs of purple with each election and it's only a matter of time before they begin swinging; MI and PA also show signs of being slightly more purple than blue. OH is the only purple state whose swing status is starting to be questioned whereas NC and FL continue the purple.