a president should represent the entire country not just the large states. The EC forces the first one. Without it rural matters would not matter in presidential politics
NYTimes: Fix the Electoral College or Scrap It
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
The president should represent every voter.
Again, the current system is set up such that it is possible for a candidate to win 12 states, each by one vote, and become president over another candidate who could have won the other states by 10s of millions. Explain how that system of electing a leader of the entire country is perfect.
So . . . the framers set it up so that only a couple of states would decide the presidency? Who knew?
Didn't they actually do the opposite? Weren't they worried that just a couple of states might quickly be calling all the shots? So they set up the Senate and the EC to prevent that.
Yet isn't that the problem we face today? Only a few "battlegrounds" states really matter in presidential elections. So much so that a few mistakes or deliberate cheating in just one state can flip the outcome.
Surely a popular vote to pick the president would be better than that.
What makes you think "rural matters" matter today, with the EC picking presidents?
Are the battleground states like Florida and Ohio and Michigan and Pennsylvania rural states?
If you want to argue that rural "considerations" - whatever that might mean - don't get enough attention, you can make that argument - but it's hard to see how ditching the EC would make things worse for rural folks or rural areas.
Maybe I'd understand your point better if you spoke more about what constitutes "rural matters." Are you talking about farming? Clean air and water? National parks? Interstate highways. Rural internet? Postal service? Rural banking? Making sure people in rural areas have good schools and hospitals?
I don't see how giving small-population states outsized power over picking presidents or setting policy makes any of those things better.
Are the small-population states rural states? A quick glance here
shows that only about half of them are - depending on how you visualize "rural."
Wyoming
Vermont
DC (yes DC votes in the EC)
Alaska
N.Dakota
S.Dakota
Delaware
Rhode Island
Montana
Maine
New Hampshire
shows that only about half of them are - depending on how you visualize "rural."
Wyoming
Vermont
DC (yes DC votes in the EC)
Alaska
N.Dakota
S.Dakota
Delaware
Rhode Island
Montana
Maine
New Hampshire
This is a mega-distortion - CA and NY don't matter is just bullcrap. Those states are ignored because they are so predictably Democratic that nobody wastes time campaigning there. Oklahoma gets ignored too. Come up with something better.
GOP voters in California and New York have no voice in the presidential election. Same with Democrats in Alabama, Mississippi, Texas...
Follow Nebraska's lead and this can change in every state. Then you will have a National campaign.
Boy, talk about a non-responsive response.
I could be in favor of that. I believe it would at least be more representative. I just can’t support our current system, not when it’s theoretically possible to win by a single vote in each of 12 states potentially overriding the real will of the populace.
I read that it's as low as 23%. Just 23% of the popular vote can win you the election. Such a system is inherently flawed.
