Why can't Dems presidential hopefuls pull this much people for any of their rallys? <20,000+

[EricHiggin]

the-pi-guy said:

Bofferbrauer2 said:

That's not because of the electoral college - that's because the winner takes all.

Another point of the electoral college which often gets overlooked is to ensure that every state will have it's representatives. Remove the electoral college, and it becomes a luck-based mission for all the smaller states as the more populous states and cities would gobble up most, if not all the spots. As a result, they would only cater for their states/cities, leaving most of the country in the dust. That's why even a tiny country like Luxembourg still has 4 voting districts to ensure every region of the country is accounted for.

That would still happen in a representative election.  Just to a lesser extent.  

EricHiggin said:

Reps in Cali still wouldn't get their way, so what's the difference?

A more balanced system would be to have only Democrat leadership instead of the back and forth that tends to take place with the existing system?

So you're saying the past and present doesn't help predict the future?

Which will lead to the coastal states getting the locked in Democrat leadership they want, that their opposition doesn't. Who cares though right? They can fight can't they? It's not like they aren't being given an option. Hmm, I wonder if people can work to pay more for things or grow things themselves?

I thought the past and present didn't help predict the future, but now it does in this case?

Tell that to the poor and minorities. What happened to everyone working together? What happened to give and take?

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/12/growing-number-of-californians-considering-moving-from-state-survey.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/19/californians-fed-up-with-housing-costs-and-taxes-are-fleeing-state.html

Try going without food, water, oil, or electricity for a couple days, or half as much anyway, and not for vacation. Now imagine that happening over weeks and months consistently. Everything's going to be just fine? Ironic since that's what they say in the movies before everyone get's snuffed.

Being undocumented makes it kinda hard to say how many there really are no? Plus it's for things like cheap labor to keep the produce prices low, which isn't necessary in this situation anymore. It's not like the one's who wanted to stay couldn't become tax paying citizens.

It is when it only ends up giving one side what it wants. The fact that side doesn't seem to be able to see this, or knows it and doesn't care, is all the more reason to make sure the EC remains in place. It's the Dems who are trying to accomplish this, and since they aren't in power and very well may lose again, you can't seriously believe they are doing this so the Reps have an equal chance at winning, otherwise why would they bother if the pop vote almost always ends up the same as the EC anyway, right?

@bold: again, all of this is an inconsistent version of what you think would happen.  The reality is, even if there was a red/blue split up, both countries would be fine.  Either one would be richer than nearly any country on the planet.  

>California housing costs

Are high because the state isn't building enough houses for the people that want or have to live there.  

>you can't seriously believe they are doing this so the Reps have an equal chance at winning, otherwise why would they bother if the pop vote almost always ends up the same as the EC anyway, right?

They're proposing it because it's fair. Every vote is equal to any other vote.  

The reality is, there is no way to know for sure how future elections would play out.  Republicans in blue states like California might be more willing to vote, which could change things.