I've heard this said before and it's just bullshit. It completely overlooks the fact that most of your elections are barely 1 million votes apart, sometimes even less than that, so it'd be impossible to be decided by a single state alone, not to mention it's stuck with the EC mentality of an entire state voting for a single party, instead of each vote within that state counting. It also forgets all those times that the republicans did win the popular vote, including Reagan, Bush sr. and even Bush jr during his reelection.
Nobody said it can't happen or that is hasn't happen. It's just not very likely to happen. Take this election in which Trump was leading the PV until CA in which she ended up with nearly 3 million more votes. Highly populated areas are largely liberal, and with cities out growing combined rural populations this will only get worse.
Democrats are still given an advantage in the EC, so it's not exactly like it's an even 50/50 odds.
The EC is just ridiculous. You don't want to have an unrepresentative system where a few people alone dictate how the country will be run, okay, but the solution isn't an even more unrepresentative
system. Especially when there are simpler, more logical, and representative solutions available, like requiring a super majority of 55% or 60% to win the election, depending on how concentrated the population is.
It's really not... we should never end up in situation where 90% of the counties in America vote red and blue ends up winning with 10% of the counties in America due to highly populated areas (these are estimated, I don't know the exact figures but Trump won most of the counties in this election). Which is what would have happen in the current election following that system. Most of the land mass voted red.
Yes it does. The EC has 538 votes, but they are not distributed solely based on population. Every state has 3 votes to start with, which means that states with very small populations that should have less votes get more, and these votes are taken away from the big states like California and Texas. So it does give disproportional representation in favor of the smaller states.
Erm, not sure what you are talking about exactly. Are you talking about the extra 2 from senators? Every state gets them... this does not take away from CA or TX. You can't argue something disproportional when all of them get the same thing, that is the exact opposite. If every state didn't get them, that would mean they would probably lower the overall win threshold from 270 making it exactly the same anyway. My state gets 3 for example, exactly what what we are suppose to get based on number of representatives and senators. My state based on population has 1 representative. We also have 2 senators (like every state). Add those up and that is 3 votes in the EC.
Saying that rural America is favored in the EC is laughable, and is mainly stated by those not from the US. But what do I know, I only live here. https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/allocation.html