This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

SW-User
I don't even know it's that's true, but I don't because there would be no point in candidates going to states with lower populations during the campaign season then. They'd be ignored.
The states with large populations would rule over the rest of the country, despite states having different laws, interests and needs.
The states with large populations would rule over the rest of the country, despite states having different laws, interests and needs.
BrakeIT · 56-60, M
Exactly. The southern states were the "losers" because of the EC in the election of Abraham Lincoln. Had the president been elected by popular vote, the south would have prevented the less populous northern states from having any impact on the election, and the democrats would have continued slavery.
katielass · F
@BrakeIT: I'm only going to address a statement you made that I know to be inaccurate. The south was NOT more populous.