,
4 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
Besides the obvious (why should we have representation according to land mass?), I'm always puzzled by the idea that one side would be "totally ignored."
If we elected Presidents by popular vote, anywhere where voter turnout could be driven up would not be ignored.
If we elected Presidents by popular vote, anywhere where voter turnout could be driven up would not be ignored.
2/ Are you in a red district with a lot of people who don't normally bother to vote? You will not be ignored!
Whereas today, all the safely red or blue states *are* "totally ignored." (Speaking as someone who lives in a reliably blue state.)
Whereas today, all the safely red or blue states *are* "totally ignored." (Speaking as someone who lives in a reliably blue state.)
3/ My Indivisible group routinely prepares for elections by deciding which other state we're going to drive to and canvass in, because there are so few races in MD where it's not clear which party will win.
PA or VA? So hard to choose. But MD? Mostly not worth bothering.
PA or VA? So hard to choose. But MD? Mostly not worth bothering.
3/ Whereas if we used popular vote, the non-voters in Baltimore city would be a gold mine. (As would any number of red areas. If you want to see a totally ignored place, think of red rural CA.)
