2 ms·
> What I really don't about the EC is that policy becomes dictated by less than a dozen "swing states". If it were a purely popular vote, candidates would only
by humanrebar 10y ago
> What I really don't about the EC is that policy becomes dictated by less than a dozen "swing states".
If it were a purely popular vote, candidates would only visit particular urban centers instead of particular states. It would be just as arbitrary and unbalanced, just in a different way.
- jmanderley 10y agoAs opposed to now, where they only visit places in a handful of states. Getting rid of the EC would mean that candidates have to pander to voting blocs more. This would likely empower the rural population.
- humanrebar 10y ago> Getting rid of the EC would mean that candidates have to pander to voting blocs more. What's the difference between a 'voting bloc' and a 'special interest'? Is the pandering to farmers in the form of more ethanol subsidies and below-market-rate crop insurance? That vision sounds like there would be more power to lobbyists and less power for local political groups. That's a sideways move at best.
- jmanderley 10y agoTo the contrary, it would decrease lobbying influence. And every vote should be equal. One man one vote. Not a sideways move in any way.
- lordnacho 10y agoIt's 2016. It matters not a jot whether a candidate comes through your town. You can still hear what he has to say. In fact, you can barely avoid it.