> > Because it allows votes to be purchased or coerced. > Already happens indirectly now right? Or are you saying the person with the most money hasn't always w

> > Because it allows votes to be purchased or coerced. > Already happens indirectly now right? Or are you saying the person with the most money hasn't always won the US presidential election? You're conflating buying influence with buying/coercing votes. These are vastly different. Imagine you live in a factory town and work in the factory. A proposition is put on the ballot to require your employer to dispose of waste properly at great cost. How are you going to vote knowing that your employer and coworkers will be able to see your ballot? Secret ballots are necessary and "presidential elections are determine by money" isn't a counterargument against it. I am also skeptical that the link between campaign money raised and votes received is strictly causative. It seems likely that a popular candidate will receive more donations just as he receives more votes. > That's fine but I'm suggesting a way to make the young more engaged. I vote but my vote is usually wasted as we don't have proportional representation in the UK. Why should voting power not be held by those with most to loose? The current system is an arbitrary 1 person is worth one vote, why it shouldn't be done on years of remaining life is arbitrary as well. Like MTV's RockTheVote which motivated people who could not otherwise be bothered to stay informed to vote? No thanks. Why do you think young people have the most to lose simply because they are statistically more likely to have more remaining years on Earth? What about people who ultimately leave the country? Or who die in car crashes? Why should people with less experience and knowledge have a greater choice in decisions? (That same demographic has already largely decided not to vote, despite being the largest demographic and therefore having the most potential influence.) The idea is absurd. (It used to be land-owning males "who had the most to lose". Disenfranchising others doesn't work.) > This is actually just a fact. If you move boundaries to make safe majorities in areas that were close now my vote that might have changed something is worthless. Corruption is always a threat to a vote. But giving yourself "a better vote" because you feel disenfranchised doesn't solve the problem of gerrymandering, etc. I would say your belief that your vote is unable to effect change (despite most eligible voters not even voting) is more causative than these problems. As for the Electoral College, it's an odd example, since the position of POTUS is elected by the States and not the people. Individual states can choose to use "winner-take-all" or not.