3 ms·
It's 3) To keep small states from being overwhelmed by large states. Assumes that loyalty and identity are primarily to a state (e.g Virginian) rather than to t
by owl_paste 8y ago
It's 3) To keep small states from being overwhelmed by large states. Assumes that loyalty and identity are primarily to a state (e.g Virginian) rather than to the country (American). Furthermore, causes undo emphasis on swing states, which are primarily based on how much urban/rural area falls within the state borders.
It's similar to the idea that each that each state gets the same number of senators. There's a balance between state governance and federal governance, such that you can live in a state more attuned to your preferences. Regardless of your political ideals, this plays out in your favor (I guarantee it, unless you're oddly attracted to the simultaneously bland and chaotic politics of the federal).
As for the claim of undue emphasis on swing states, I'd say then it's working as expected by even allowing swing states to have a chance against California. So I guess we come to our fundamental disagreement: should the majority always be able to railroad all dissenters? The Founding Fathers thought about the same question and figured, no, the majority is not always to be trusted.
To give just a bit more context still, I'm vehemently opposed to Trump for a number of reasons, but by no means see the Democratic party as putting up many good candidates. I just can't stand by their platform on many things. But my point is that while I would have liked, say, Rubio as president, the majority of Republicans selected Trump. The majority did something I really disliked.
The Electoral College is there to have some kind of counterbalance to oppressive majority. Whether it's truly effective is a matter for another, more detailed debate. All I asked in my original comment is that people not dismiss it as ill-thought-out, unfair or archaic without giving it some thought.
Edit in response to your edit: obviously I'm not disingenuously writing some alternative argument. I wrote this before your edit.
- pseudalopex 8y agoDo you think the framers of the Constitution intended the House to have one representative for every 750,000 people? You didn't simply ask people to give it some thought. You implied the person you were addressing hadn't. Then you reacted to the resulting downvotes by calling them uncivil and hypocritical and snarking about the 2016 election. You went on to imply that your opponent wants "to railroad all dissenters", which is hardly a charitable interpretation.