>small states and small districts generally get an unjust magnitude of political power
The electoral college exists for a reason: precisely to protect the interests of the minority of people who don't live in cities from the whims of those who do. I live in Maine and we recently passed a citizen referendum for a large minimum wage increase in the state. This is almost entirely because of the people in a few population centers. These places will be able to absorb that hike moderately well, but the rural parts of the state are going to get crushed by it, and they're already the poorest parts of the state. It should have been a city ordinance, but was not.
>Trump did not win the populist victory. Hillary Clinton did.
Both campaigns were strategized around the existence of the electoral college. Winning the popular vote is merely an artifact of the system in place, but holds no real meaning. There's little reason to assume that were the popular vote what actually decided the election that the result of the election would have been different, as the strategies employed by both campaigns would have been different.
>protect the interests of the minority of people who don't live in cities from the whims of those who do
This is a straw man that is commonly made by advocates of the EC. The top 50 cities in the U.S. only account for 15% of the total population, so it's a nonexistent problem.
Yeah, I actually mispoke. the EC is to balance the larger more powerful states against the interests of the smaller ones. It is a compromise that was necessary to fashion the union in the first place. The reason it's not obvious is because of the federal government growing far beyond what it was intended to be.
Yes, both campaigns were strategized around the existence of the electoral college, but that's tweaking at the margins. It doesn't explain a vote difference in the millions.
The main reason for the difference in millions isn't even electoral college per se, it's the fact that most (all but 2) states allocate all their electors to whoever gets more votes in that state. In essence, every state throws all its minority votes away. If you think of it in terms of vote suppression (which, frankly, it is), it's one of such epic proportions that it dwarfs everything else, including redistricting, voter ID laws etc.
I mean, think about it. In California, 33% of residents voted for Trump this year - and those votes didn't count in any sensible way. In Texas, 43% of residents voted for Clinton this year - and those votes didn't count, either!
>This idea that there is impact from republicans not voting isn't true
Which is supported by what evidence?
There are tons of people that don't vote in any given election. Everyone has their reasons, and I'm sure apathy is the leading one, but it's crazy to suggest some portion of them don't vote because they live in a state that won't flip anyway. If you a Republican in California or a Democrat in Kansas, you don't really expect your vote to count.
Post election analysis. The Republicans came out and voted at the same levels as the last election, the Democrats did not. This is why the popular vote difference is exasperated, because the candidate with the most popular vote, by millions, had less of a turnout.
You seem to be missing my point. In any election, some large portion of the population doesn't vote at all. At least some of them are refraining because they know their state is a foregone conclusion.
And you're missing my point that your making broad generalizations about every election is pointless - that the difference between this election and other elections is what matters.
The electoral college exists for a reason: precisely to protect the interests of the minority of people who don't live in cities from the whims of those who do. I live in Maine and we recently passed a citizen referendum for a large minimum wage increase in the state. This is almost entirely because of the people in a few population centers. These places will be able to absorb that hike moderately well, but the rural parts of the state are going to get crushed by it, and they're already the poorest parts of the state. It should have been a city ordinance, but was not.
>Trump did not win the populist victory. Hillary Clinton did.
Both campaigns were strategized around the existence of the electoral college. Winning the popular vote is merely an artifact of the system in place, but holds no real meaning. There's little reason to assume that were the popular vote what actually decided the election that the result of the election would have been different, as the strategies employed by both campaigns would have been different.