Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tully Mars
But that's not really what the EC does. The EC gives more weight to some votes while decreasing the value of other votes. Basically under the EC a candidate could lose every single vote in 39 states while merely winning the majority of votes in the 11 most populated states and end up in the Oval Office.
|
There's no such thing as a perfect system. The same criticisms can be given against direct democracy as well, and moreso. If the president were elected through a purely democratic vote (which isn't some new idea, it was thoroughly considered and rejected by the founders), that person could appeal strictly to, say, white voters, and completely ignore minorities and still win the election. Or, that person could campaign only in heavily populated regions (such as new england and the west coast) and ignore the needs of other regions.
Also, the idea that everyone's vote is 100% equal is not something the founder's sought: rather, they sought to prevent the tyrrany of majority, which the electoral college does rather effectively. It's impossible for a president to win an election without appealing to the area where the votes are "less important" such as California, but the electoral college makes it so that those candidates must also appeal to other, less populous states in order to win. It's the same reason Iowa and New Hampshire have their primaries before everyone else: on a national level, the interests of Iowans are generall ignored, but by giving them some weight in choosing the candidates it ensures that their opinions are heard as well.
No doubt, there are people whose views and needs are ignored right now. Like I said, no election system is perfect. But the number of people who are ignored - and the degree to which they are ignored - could be far greater were we to fall into the temptation of direct democracy. Our republic does a great deal to spread out influence and force compromise.