City riots. Social media rants. Resisting acceptance. Udder disbelief. Flocking to Canada. We get it. You’re upset. You’re scared of the future of the US. You’re believing that we’ve taken a tremendous step backwards from the progress we’ve made toward equality.
Donald Trump (by his own remarks) wears the cape of everything that scares us. We can point fingers at the ‘racist’ voters who elected him. We can question our friends and family that chose the less unfit candidate. We can denounce his inauguration and continue to complain. Or, which I will be doing, we can accept our fate, unite together, and move forward as a unified nation. We’ve done this for 250 years.
The one component of this election (that’s larger than the two candidates) that frustrates me is the outdated electoral college system. Hillary garnered more overall votes (she won the popular vote) but fell short in electoral votes. The support Trump built from states such as Georgia, Arizona, and Wisconsin pushed him over the edge. My question: why should support in less populated, less influential (socially, economically, politically) states count the same as votes from cities?
Here is a map I found from an old NYT article, arguing for a reshaping of how we actually view the United States. Yes, every vote counts. Yes, everyone should have their opinion heard. But there needs to be some sort of multiplier for more heavily populated states.
This is not a political rant, but rather a pitch to rethink the way we view the united states. So long as we have such strong/uncalled for state representation, the electoral college system will stay in tact, and the elections can be compared to FanDuel, where you can buy cheaper, less sexy states, but as they add up, you can find yourself a win.