Is this logic flawed? Obviously in swing races, vote how it’s needed, but if it’s probably going to be a landslide, why not vote for a third party? Some regions even allow for multiple party representation if enough people show interest, so it could be doing future good (if you think more parties is better representation)
I think one argument against would be that there is a movement to change how the presidential election is decided. Your right, the electoral College doesn’t care who you vote for in an uncontested state. But if we can keep showing that it doesn’t represent the popular vote, then maybe something will change.
But is there any path for that to actually happen? In the US multiple recent presidential elections the popular vote didn’t align with the electoral college, and I haven’t heard of any actual movement towards changing that
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
Interesting, thanks for the heads up
Didn’t know about the last two hadn’t heard of much progress since 2019. Still, need quite a bit more before it matters literally at all. Maybe the wave of people voting for abortion rights can help flip enough seats to people who will support passing this stuff over the next few years.
You think “the electoral college” is going to give up power? That the current electors even have that power?
The only way to change it to popular vote is to capture 2/3s of the government including the presidency.
With the two current parties neither will get it. We need a FDR style party and hopefully could get enough to do it.
No, the electoral college doesn’t have that power, but lawmakers do. And if enough states commit, the electoral college is effectively dead. Even if a minority of states stick with the electoral college system.