By itself, it may not be justification for the Electoral System. However, taken in context with the rest of the things the EC attempts to balance, it's justifiable. Candidates may not have to physically "visit" a city, but they do tend to focus on urban issues and, at times, cultivate certain cities in attempt to gain those votes. There may be something to be said about the meta-effects of "density" when one has the favor of such populations.Ketraar wrote: ↑Fri, 26. Apr 19, 02:18This is a point made often and it still is not anywhere near accurate.
This old video explains it very well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k
Now, as to targeting large population densities in a purely "Popular Vote" system, it's an entirely reasonable strategy based on efficiency. CGPGrey also plays a shell-game with the terms "percentage of total population" and "popular vote" I think. The total number of votes in the 2016 election was around 138 million. If one could win over the support of a large majority of urban dwellers, that would be a very significant number in comparison to the likely number of total votes cast. NOT population. Not the possible number of all eligible voters. But, based on voter turnout, who's likely to vote, how efficient and what the campaign cost-benefits would be, focusing largely on urban centers would have a definite pay-off. And, keep in mind, that doesn't mean they don't win other votes, either. There's going to be things that are not dependent upon them taking on suburban issues in their platform that will still gain the votes of those living in less densely supported regions.
CGPGrey often starts off his vids with a premise and then proves it while ignoring some practical reasons things aren't the way he says they are. Not that I don't appreciate some of his informative vids - He's a good youtuber, by and large, with high production values. I just dislike certain sorts of interpretations presented in absence of practical reality. If, for instance, the opposite existed and the determination was purely by popular vote, would it not be the case that candidates would focus on that in disregard of some regional matters of concern or certain State issues or the concerns of areas with very low population density in comparison? If so, he'd be doing a vid about that injustice, wouldn't he?
It's a compromise solution that exists right now. It's not completely "fair," it's only designed to be "more fair" under the desired conditions, mainly the sovereignty and concerns of States, versus other methods.
How are votes being "artificially split" here? In the US after a Presidential Election, even those who voted against the winner generally rally around the newly elected President as being representative of "The Will of the People." It may seem strange, but that's what we do. In the case of the latest elected President, though, the polarizing of politics and this President's general lack of ability or desire to act as a unifying force has still left the country somewhat divided on opinion. (Keep in mind that Obama had similar issues during his Presidency at times, but not to this degree really.)Not just the EC is a bad system, but also the FPTP system is stupid in a representative system, having it so that about half the votes are discarded is ludicrous (watch the video for worse case scenario). Elections for single seat office its stupid to have the votes artificially split.
The US is a Representative Republic with Democratic Principles. It's not a pure politically defined "Democracy." But, it is "Democratic."As its now its not really very democratic, especially for the self proclaimed beacon of democracy. Not even going into gerrymandering and all that nonsense that just makes any non US person not living in a dictatorship go O.O
PS - I agree it's not a "perfect system." It's as fair as it can be right now while still observing the fundamentals present in our political system, namely the sovereignty of the States. (They aren't counties or principalities or regions - They're more akin to nations in an "Empire" than many other things.) It is subject to being "somewhat" exploited, though none of what goes on during a Presidential Election occurs in the vacuum CGPGrey/others may insist exists in their examples. Thanks to Television, Radio and Telephone, which make daily appearances of candidates across the entire nation possible, on TV or in daily newspapers and radio, we're dealing with mechanics that actually work to reduce the effectiveness of campaigns focusing their efforts on one segment of the population over another. So, if you're looking for an equalizer for a "Fair Democratic System of Voting" that's a pretty big factor. And... such sorts of communication can be easily manipulated depending on the easy of creating content and broadcasting it. Thanks to "teh internetz" we now see the impact of that form of mass media, too.
Eh... I didn't bring it up to start with. But, if it is going to be brought into the discussion, the reasons it exist kind of have to be stated else it's just going to devolve into ways to invalidate elections by staring out with the premise that they're "fundamentally flawed and unfair to everybody/RIGGED!."
On a side note: How in the heck are Democrats going to figure out their Army of candidates? It's a "Progressive" takeover, practically speaking. I'm not sure how traditional "Liberals" feel about it, either. Are they happy with some choices? Ticked off there's nobody carrying their "flag" or not taking the "radical Progressive" bait being lofted everywhere? Will "Uncle Joe" turn the tide or is he going to jump into the Progressive punch-bowl with both feet?