• JackbyDev@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    17 hours ago

    If he’s from California then my vote counts a little more because my state has less population. The smaller the state’s population the more their vote counts.

    • Sludgeyy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Wyoming has the lowest population.

      Makes sense why candidates spend all their time trying to get these powerful voters on their side. Those 3 electoral votes really makes it the most powerful swing state.

      Someone in Wyoming has more electoral votes to their votes, yes. And I believe that is the point you’re making.

      If everyone in Wyoming voted for Candidate A. Candidate A has basically the same chance of winning or losing.

      If everyone in California voted for Candidate A. Candidate A has a lot better chance of winning.

      It’s more powerful to be able to vote in something that actually matters than to vote in something that doesn’t.

      You could just not count any votes in Wyoming and still call the overall winner 99.999% of the time. It would have to come down to 3 electoral votes tie breaker for their votes to even matter. Whereas every vote in California always matters.

      Like in this last election. If Harris won every “swing state”. But Trump could have won California and he’d win the election.

      Electoral college has It’s pros and cons but “The smaller the state’s population the more their vote counts.” Isn’t true.

      It’s the middle size, “swing states”, that the voters have the most powerful.

      You aren’t a drop in the bucket like California, but your state has enough electoral votes to actually swing things.