3 ms·

I don't see how anyone can argue for the electoral college as a feature in our modern times. Our Senate and the electoral college were designed in order to get

I don't see how anyone can argue for the electoral college as a feature in our modern times. Our Senate and the electoral college were designed in order to get support from colonies to form the new USA. It worked well for that purpose. We have entirely different goals now. We should be aiming for fair elections in which one person's vote is equal to any other's regardless of the state they reside. The electoral college is downright repulsive once you realize how unfairly it treats citizens in more populated states compared to those in less populated states. The electoral college now has the potential of pulling the union apart. If California and New York see a few more elections in which their citizens' votes are discounted, resulting in popular vote winners losing the presidency, then it would be logical for them to secede. They can take their massive economies and accompanying tax dollars and leave this system behind, as it should've been a long time ago.

throwawaysea 6y ago
The reality of the power balance the opposite of what you’re saying, in my opinion. Places like CA and NY have incredible influence and power even with the electoral college. The calls for one person’s vote being equal to others nationally is just a virtuous rhetorical argument to justify a power grab that would take power away from places which already have diminished influence. The reality is that different locations have different ways of life and culture and politics, and therefore self determination must be supported through some mechanisms (like the electoral college) for a federal union to make sense and for those peoples to feel represented. If we are undoing that we need to also give states the option to secede and go their own way, since this union would simply mean the end of their way of life.
- mrtranscendence 6y ago
  This talk of disenfranchising areas feels bizarre to me. Areas can’t be enfranchised or disenfranchised; only people can. And right now people in more populous areas are less enfranchised than people from rural areas. That has led to minority rule and should not rightly be allowed to stand.
throwaway201103 6y ago
The constitution declares that the president is elected by the states, not by the people directly. The electoral college serves to moderate the influence of dense population areas. On a straight popular vote basis, the large urban centers in a handful of states would select the president. Their interests and motivations will necessarily be different from rural areas. The electoral college gives populous states proportionally more influence, as they have more congressional representatives and thus more electoral votes. But it serves to balance that against the interests of less populated states, which are also part of the country and should not be considered completely irrelevant in the process.
Gunax 6y ago
Why stop at the electoral college then? The same logic can be applied to both houses. Hell it's the same way in parliamentary systems. This is a feature of any indirect vote.
saberdancer 6y ago
Removing electoral college would remove all the interesting stuff about campaigning. Campaigns would focus on large urban areas and no one would set foot in sparsely populated areas. I always feel that we are highly inclined to promote a voting system which would help the side we support.

throwawaysea 6y ago

The reality of the power balance the opposite of what you’re saying, in my opinion. Places like CA and NY have incredible influence and power even with the electoral college. The calls for one person’s vote being equal to others nationally is just a virtuous rhetorical argument to justify a power grab that would take power away from places which already have diminished influence. The reality is that different locations have different ways of life and culture and politics, and therefore self determination must be supported through some mechanisms (like the electoral college) for a federal union to make sense and for those peoples to feel represented. If we are undoing that we need to also give states the option to secede and go their own way, since this union would simply mean the end of their way of life.

mrtranscendence 6y ago
This talk of disenfranchising areas feels bizarre to me. Areas can’t be enfranchised or disenfranchised; only people can. And right now people in more populous areas are less enfranchised than people from rural areas. That has led to minority rule and should not rightly be allowed to stand.

throwaway201103 6y ago

The constitution declares that the president is elected by the states, not by the people directly. The electoral college serves to moderate the influence of dense population areas. On a straight popular vote basis, the large urban centers in a handful of states would select the president. Their interests and motivations will necessarily be different from rural areas. The electoral college gives populous states proportionally more influence, as they have more congressional representatives and thus more electoral votes. But it serves to balance that against the interests of less populated states, which are also part of the country and should not be considered completely irrelevant in the process.

Gunax 6y ago

Why stop at the electoral college then? The same logic can be applied to both houses. Hell it's the same way in parliamentary systems. This is a feature of any indirect vote.

saberdancer 6y ago

Removing electoral college would remove all the interesting stuff about campaigning. Campaigns would focus on large urban areas and no one would set foot in sparsely populated areas. I always feel that we are highly inclined to promote a voting system which would help the side we support.