I live in California and I see what the popular vote does. Republicans here have no voice in anything.
I support the EC but I don’t support the winner-takes-all approach. If a candidate wins 51% of the vote in a state, they shouldn’t get 100% of the EC’s, they should get 51% of the EC’s in that state.
I live in California, and I would be more compelled to vote if this were the case. Because even if my candidate only won 35% of the EC’s, at least I’d know I contributed to that. I think it would represent people more accurately and encourage more people to be part of the election process while at the same time avoiding the mob rule and protecting the sanctity of the constitution.
I agree with you Durbin. See my post 98.
In our scenario, Trump would have gotten about 17 EC votes, and Hillary would have gotten about 34.
That seems reasonable, considering the demographics in our state. Again the big cities end up ruling, but at least the rest of the land mass of CA gets a say equal to their number.