Two Counties Gave HRC her ENTIRE PV Plurality

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

>sigh<

I am honestly not sure how to explain the concept that "a vote is a vote" and that arbitrary political boundaries should not be used to justify weighting some ballots more than others, so I'm going to tell a story in the hopes that we can finally lay this argument to rest.

***

Many centuries ago, there lived a good and wise king who was nearing the end of his life. Having no children to inherit the throne after his death, he decreed that the crown would pass to he who would win the most for his people.

The terms were announced three years from the day when the choice of the new king would be made, and the contenders for the throne instructed to prepare their dowries. Though many pronounced intent to claim the prize, by the end of the three years but two men appeared at court to make their offering to the kingdom.

The first man, a merchant who had won great wealth from the ports of far-off lands, came smartly into the hall. He was followed by three attendants; each attendant carried a great oak coffer, and each coffer contained 1,000 gold talents.

"My liege," said the merchant, "I bring you these three coffers of gold, which I have earned by the careful execution of my trade, and which I now intend to bestow upon the people, should you be so just as to deliver unto me the throne."

At the conclusion of his speech, the second man entered the room. He was a soldier, the conqueror of many lands, and he drew behind him a cart on which were piled 5,000 talents of the same make and metal as those in the coffers of the merchant.

"My good and gracious king," said he, "all this I have won in the conquest of our enemies, and this I now present to you, that it may be given to the people when I shall be their ruler."

The king's trusted chancellor, having heard these speeches, approached the two and said, "Verily, then the merchant shall be king, for he has brought three coffers of gold, while the soldier offers but one cart."

"Not so," said the monarch, "you have mistaken the product for the parts. By the rules of our compact, the soldier shall be king; for while the merchant's gift comes in more containers, the soldier's is the greater sum; and whether it is drawn in one cart or in twenty, its value is the same."

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I am yet to hear a reasonable argument for why some citizens ought to have more representation than others, and yet that is the end result of all arguments for why the majority ought to be disenfranchised in favor of giving extra votes to arbitrarily drawn, sparsely populated political districts. If it is indeed true that "governments... [derive] their just powers from the consent of the governed," ought not the will of the governed be the most important factor in selecting the head of government?

Perhaps we could compromise by using the Mexican system to elect our president. In that, the candidate with the most votes wins, but every voter must show a photo ID proving their citizenship and eligibility to vote. Democrats get a popular vote. GOP gets voter ID. Sounds like a good compromise to me!

I could support this, provided we take the necessary steps to ensure that all voting age citizens receive a photo ID.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Hypothetically if a republican candidate got 90% of the vote in the southern states and won the popular vote but lost all the other states should that person be president?  I don't think so.

Why on earth not? It's clear that, for this scenario to be mathematically possible, the Republican nominee must have lost the non-Southern states by very slim margins and probably massively outperformed in traditionally liberal states like New York and California (meaning that a fair number of Democrats voted for the Republican candidate). I don't see why the GOP voters in those states should be disenfranchised, especially considering they constitute a majority of citizens nationally.