4 ms·

If your goal is a United States, then purely populous isn't ideal. Electoral college essentially requires cross-regional appeal in order to win. We also have

If your goal is a United States, then purely populous isn't ideal. Electoral college essentially requires cross-regional appeal in order to win. We also have to remember that there are some really key states to the US that don't have population. Ex: Alaska and Hawaii. It's not good to lose states (or regions) from the union based purely on votes cast from more populated regions. But it does need to be damn close to # of votes. The electoral college is not perfect but it's pretty masterful.

berdario 6y ago
How does normalizing Alaska and Hawaii's representation to their population cause them to be "lost from the union"? Puerto Rico has 0 representation, and yet they're still part of the united states (ok, plenty of puerto rican might want a different arrangement... but my point is that you'll lose Puerto Rico before losing Alaska)
- exclusiv 6y ago
  I'm just saying that if a small subset of states (NY/CA/TX/FL,etc) essentially could pick the President as an example, you run the risk of alienating a lot of states, including some that are really important, but have small populations. And it could get to the point where they wish to exit the union. Let's say you lose the farmland and Alaska and some other important, but low population states. Is that worth it so everyone could say that the most votes will always win? We already have a system where candidates can just ignore states. They really can't ignore regions though with the electoral college. They have to have some cross regional appeal to win. That's a good thing. Straight popular votes is too risky for little gain. I care more about the states and their rights, the preservation of the union, the country's assets, and other things than ensuring that every vote is counted 1:1 in practice. For many, yes, their vote will not matter depending on who they vote for and where they live. But the founders anticipated more than most realize. It's like when you have an election with 10 candidates. Nobody gets a majority, but some people are like - whoever gets the most votes should win! That's not likely to be the best result. I'm a big fan of keeping it simple. But I don't believe a straight popular vote would be a better system with our history, today's divisiveness and the goals of preserving the union.

berdario 6y ago

How does normalizing Alaska and Hawaii's representation to their population cause them to be "lost from the union"? Puerto Rico has 0 representation, and yet they're still part of the united states (ok, plenty of puerto rican might want a different arrangement... but my point is that you'll lose Puerto Rico before losing Alaska)

exclusiv 6y ago
I'm just saying that if a small subset of states (NY/CA/TX/FL,etc) essentially could pick the President as an example, you run the risk of alienating a lot of states, including some that are really important, but have small populations. And it could get to the point where they wish to exit the union. Let's say you lose the farmland and Alaska and some other important, but low population states. Is that worth it so everyone could say that the most votes will always win? We already have a system where candidates can just ignore states. They really can't ignore regions though with the electoral college. They have to have some cross regional appeal to win. That's a good thing. Straight popular votes is too risky for little gain. I care more about the states and their rights, the preservation of the union, the country's assets, and other things than ensuring that every vote is counted 1:1 in practice. For many, yes, their vote will not matter depending on who they vote for and where they live. But the founders anticipated more than most realize. It's like when you have an election with 10 candidates. Nobody gets a majority, but some people are like - whoever gets the most votes should win! That's not likely to be the best result. I'm a big fan of keeping it simple. But I don't believe a straight popular vote would be a better system with our history, today's divisiveness and the goals of preserving the union.