Yes, in the absolute sense, because that is where the first primary is. Yes, because even Obama campaigned in Montana under the electoral college system. The appropriate analogy is the primary process--the candidates go to more states because it is a more close approximation of every vote counting. Why did the candidates in 2016 campaign in certain congressional districts of Maine and Nebraska, because their votes matter.
That's not the reason and you know it.1 Million people, ~600+ miles wide, ~250 miles in length. population pretty much equally spread.
If you hit all four of those tiny red dots you still only would have gotten close to 1/4 of the state's small population.
And you don't see anything wrong with that? How many swing states do you have again, a dozen or so? If your argument is "states matter", why exactly are you totally okay with the fact that, according to yourself, three quarters of them "obviously" don't matter because they're decided?
There are various ways to combat that one is the us electoral system another is the parliamentary system in place in places like uk India France etc . Which leads to unpopular ppl being elected too but doubt a trump would have happened given the current electoral split in that system ... So really depends ... Having said that both knew what they were fighting for and one won .
And?
They did. The entire back half of clinton's campaign was really nothing more than slinging dirt at Trump as a person, which is one of the bigger reasons why she lost.
Slavery was abolished, the union of states wasn't (afaik).
How is the canadian election system in comparison?
It just seems really weird to me. For example this was earlier this year in Austria, the 2nd round of presidential election:
Yet the green party candidate won (eventhough the election was invalidated due to systematic failures later on). It's really a difficult matter and either you kind of have cities ruling over the rest of the country OR you have city votes being worth less than rural votes. Either way someone "loses".
given the dates don't perfectly line up though.
Yep. Essentially winning the popular but losing electoral college means you misplaced resources. It would be very easy to win popular vote if that's what you were going for in an Electoral College election. You simply spend campaign funding in states you were going to win or lose easily.
It really isn't a difficult matter. People are what matters, not land. The moment you get this simple fact through your head, you stop feeling the need to warp votes to make some voters more important than others just because they live in an area with low population density.
Apart from oddities of populations not matching EC seats in correct ratios, every vote is worth the same.
That "odditity" itself is the point of contention.
This is true, hence why I mentioned it. If it was purely a ratio based on population of those eligible to vote it would smooth that over.
This is nonsense. Any blue vote in a red state is NOT worthless. If you get enough of them you turn the state blue.
The US doesn't only have proportional votes for the EC afaik. It's also not directly comparable since we both don't have the winner takes it all approach and because we vote for a parliament which then elects a president from among them in the EU and lastly because the president of the european parliament doesn't hold nearly as much governance.
