I’m in the opposite scenario - my vote will not matter since my county/state is not close to 50/50.
It’s a laughably depressing system. I think (without any supporting evidence) the national election system was designed to fit to the standards of transportation and communication 200+ years ago. It was actually feasible to vote per state then send one dude on horseback to DC to cast the vote for the whole state. That’s an OK system for the time.
But the fact that each state is given an approximate weight for its vote (electoral college system), is evidence to how we are trying get to something that looks like a nationally counted winner take all election. We’re just doing it terribly.
If we fixed these issues then election campaigns couldn’t just focus on swing states and ignore everyone else. The game theory would then shift to just needing to convince a majority of all voters to vote for you.
Should there be no balance between state size? California always determining the president and ensuring Montana and Rhode Island are never campaigned in?
I am not convinced states should be the decider of president, rather than the people.
Besides, in your example, neither of those states matter anyway. Why should Pennsylvania be so important, merely because the electorate seems evenly split between the two major parties?
It's going to be insane here.
This week alone we've had Bill Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Tim Walz stumping here.
https://newrepublic.com/article/187597/pennsylvania-election...