4 ms·
The value of those states was not in question when they threatened succession; they were important enough to fight a war over. Nor would many of the states hav
by robonerd 4y ago
The value of those states was not in question when they threatened succession; they were important enough to fight a war over. Nor would many of the states have joined the union in the first place if not for this system, so America wouldn't have existed in the first place if you had your way. The entire country is premised on this compromise.
- krapp 4y agoThe centuries-old political climate in which the electoral college was born has little if any bearing on its utility for the modern United States. I doubt the only thing keeping rural states in the union now is leverage against abolitionists.
- hellojesus 4y agoIt was designed to prevent tyranny of the majority.
- CamperBob2 4y agoThis argument comes up often, but I've never understood how tyranny of the minority is any better.
- krapp 4y agoThe people who make that argument are usually benefactors of that tyranny.
- hellojesus 4y agoIt's because tyranny of the minority means prevention against new laws, not the enactment of them. It's the safer path, generally not absolutely. A bias towards inaction.
- krapp 4y agoTyranny of the minority only means prevention of laws the minority disagrees with. That minority hasn't, historically, taken issue with new laws that cater to them.