zlacker

> Disenfranchise half the country?

Way more than half the country was disenfranchised in the last election. Best case scenario (and very unlikely scenario): blue sweep in the next elections and then massive electoral reform.

>>xnx+(OP)
Electoral reform is really hard for parties just voted in by that election system. Suddenly they see the good in that which they had previously seen as bad.

>>xnx+(OP)
> Way more than half the country was disenfranchised in the last election.

Over 152 million votes were cast, representing more than 64% turnout among those eligible to vote (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidentia...).

The USA has about 342 million people, and over 18% of them are age 14 or younger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Sta...) and at least some of them are 15-17 (citation needed). So clearly, doing some arithmetic, there are fewer than 304 million adults.

Not only was "half the country" not "disenfranchised", literally a majority of adults actually voted (and this is not even considering that not all adults were statutorily allowed to vote in the first place).

>>zahlma+Tk2
Because of the electoral college, gerrymandering, and other reasons (e.g. District of Columbia) many votes don't count at all or count far less.

>>xnx+en2
If that is what you're referring to, then it's nothing particular to Trump. Not all of it is even particular to the US; for example, Canadian electoral "ridings" function like single-EV states.

But also, Trump won the popular vote this time.

>>zahlma+Wr2
No dispute there. It's just a terrible system that has no reason to exist. No telling what turnout would be if more of the country new their vote might matter.