538 has Biden with something like a 96% chance of winning the popular vote. There is a good chance he wins the election, too, but the latter is something that shouldn't matter at all. One person, one vote. Not 3.5 votes in Wyoming to Californians 1 vote.
I wonder if the forefathers envisioned a situation where minority rules. Iíll go out on a limb and say no...
Of course they envisioned it. They debated it, and decided on a balance of population versus statesí rights. They didnít want Virginia making decisions for the entire country.
If they wanted straight majority rule, thatís what the Constitution would say. I mean, in the very first election where popular vote was recorded (1824), the ďwinnerĒ of the popular vote lost the election. And nobody cared, because it was irrelevant. There was no majority in the Electoral College, so the vote went to the House, where John Quincy Adams was elected despite losing the popular vote by 10+ percentage points.
I'm failing to understand the argument from some here against the Electoral College. They're saying it's not fair because it gives rural states "too much power," but rural states have very few electoral votes. My home state of Maine has only 4 electoral votes, and consequently, presidential candidates barely pay Maine any attention. I mean, if you win New York, California, Florida, and Pennsylvania, you're well on your way to winning the presidency. The system is proportional, right? Populous states have lots of electoral votes, which makes those states "more valuable" in a presidential election. If anything, that seems to highly favor "big states" and highly marginalize "small states." When was the last time you heard any presidential candidate talk about the importance of "winning Maine" or "winning South Dakota"?
While it is based somewhat on population, what you state is actually not the case. Because all states get a minimum of 3 electoral votes (1 for every representative, 2 for Senators). While it may not seem like much, a state like Wyoming would only receive 1 electoral vote (instead of 3) and California would increase its # to 65 (from 55). I found this article helpful:https://www.270towin.com/news/2017/01/24/if-electoral-votes-were-weighted-by-state-population-alone-trump-303-clinton-235_442.html
As you can see, it actually would have made very little difference in the 2016 election. The bigger issue is the winner take all system we currently have. Not only does it make bigger states irrelevant in national elections, but it just isn't representative of the voting electorate. Elections should hinge on FL every year, and if they do, I agree that Dems need to get their act together and begin moving to some of these swing states. If they could ever secure FL and TX as blue, it would be over forever. It may not be fair (as I mentioned, I believe in a popular vote system), but it's pretty easy to get it to work in your favor if you're just willing to a little adventurous.