3 ms·

I used to think getting rid of the Electoral College was "obviously" the right thing. Then I learned more about how the US works, and realized that the elector

by ars 2y ago

I used to think getting rid of the Electoral College was "obviously" the right thing. Then I learned more about how the US works, and realized that the electoral college is actually its strength! Without it cities would completely dominate rural areas, like completely. Those rural areas would essentially have zero voice. Think about it: do you want a US where only a couple states control the entire thing? And I don't mean like today where some states are predictably red or blue (i.e. where only the swing states "count") - in the current state red vs blue alternate positions on capital hill, so all those states eventually get their voice heard. In a world without the Electoral College the rural states get zero voice. None. I don't think the US would survive this.

krapp 2y ago
The Electoral College only affects the election of the President, who does not (despite popular misconception) actually run the government the way a CEO runs a country, rather he represents one of three equal and (ostensibly) separate branches of government. The Electoral College doesn't determine the distribution of representatives in Congress, nor the election of judges. Obviously rural states would not cease to have a voice in government if the President were elected by popular vote - which is in essence what the Electoral College is designed to prevent - because most Presidents have been and yet rural states somehow persist, pass legislation and maintain political power.
sapphicsnail 2y ago
Why should someone in a rural area get a bigger say than someone in an urban one? California has more people than ~15 least populous states combined. Also, all the rural red counties in CA effectively have no voice in the presidential election. It's a dumb, outdated, arbitrary system.
mcphage 2y ago
> Think about it: do you want a US where only a couple states control the entire thing? You mean like the US we have, where the entire race is focused on 7 states?

by ars 2y ago

krapp 2y ago

The Electoral College only affects the election of the President, who does not (despite popular misconception) actually run the government the way a CEO runs a country, rather he represents one of three equal and (ostensibly) separate branches of government. The Electoral College doesn't determine the distribution of representatives in Congress, nor the election of judges. Obviously rural states would not cease to have a voice in government if the President were elected by popular vote - which is in essence what the Electoral College is designed to prevent - because most Presidents have been and yet rural states somehow persist, pass legislation and maintain political power.

sapphicsnail 2y ago

Why should someone in a rural area get a bigger say than someone in an urban one? California has more people than ~15 least populous states combined. Also, all the rural red counties in CA effectively have no voice in the presidential election. It's a dumb, outdated, arbitrary system.

mcphage 2y ago

> Think about it: do you want a US where only a couple states control the entire thing? You mean like the US we have, where the entire race is focused on 7 states?