Yeah. They left OK. Most of the story takes place in CA. But, yeah, Ann Richards was once governor of Texas.
There is probably something to be said about these states becoming increasingly conservative as small time farmers at the mercy of banks and cops evicting them gave way to large scale corporate agriculture and agribusiness.
And within a year there will almost certainly be a lot of voters' remorse and voters who help elect Trump because they thought he would lower prices start to feel impact of inflation resulting from his mass deportations and across the board tariffs.
Electoral college count North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Utah, Alaska, Maine, Utah, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Iowa, Nebraska, and West Virginia all added together equal 55 EC votes California equals 55 EC votes
Not true. Electoral votes are given to the individual states based on population. States with more people get more electoral votes. CA gets 54, KS gets 6. Did you think all the states got the same amount of electoral votes?
The bigger impact is in the Senate where California gets 2 and 14 states aggregating a similar population get 28
Percent of the US that is in an urban area: 1980: 73.74% urban 2020: 80.77% urban Looks like people are trying to get away from the rural people.
I do think the EC matters. I get the argument against, but people vote based on their demos and surroundings. If the populated cities have all the say, then we never have anyone thinking about the needs or rural voters. I think the EC is just a good check)balance that keeps the rural population engaged and gives their pov a real voice. We aren't a pure democracy for a reason.
Actually, it is true. Population in California: 38.97 million Divide that by 54, and each electoral college vote is responsible for 721,667 people. Population in Kansas: 2.941 million Divide that by 6, and each electoral college vote is responsible for 490,167 people. That makes votes in California worth 68% of a Kansas vote. You have decided that California voters vote should be worth only 2/3 of what a Kansas voter is worth.
Birth rates being equal, (not sure if they are or are not), the larger base will increase faster than the smaller base in overall numbers.
The electoral college is a horrible system to keep a population engaged. The vast majority of people live in a state in which neither candidate competes for their votes. If you want campaigns to compete for their votes, don't make them strategically useless in all but the states that are close. In fact, you argue that the system would be biased in favor of cities, but the current system is biased in favor of medium sized states with relatively equal splits in voters. That distorts the incentive structure for politicians. Ever wonder why the US won't allow the sale of very cheap electric cars that would easily pass safety inspection from China? Because the people that benefit from locking them out (in the short term) live in Michigan, a state that matters, and the people that would benefit from cheaper cars primarily live in states that don't matter.
Under a system in which the president is elected through the popular vote voters in rural states would still have a say only it wouldn't be disproportional in their favor but would reflect their percentage of the total electorate.
But they wouldnt. With the populated areas being more liberal, rural (conservative) voters would have less voice. Like I said, I understand the argument, but I feel the EC is good. We are not a pure democracy.
