Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

shakran · 08-07-2008, 07:29 PM

Two schools of thought, and since I'm a journalist I get to be an asshole and not tell you which one I agree with

Situation A: Without the electoral college, city issues would trump rural issues. Here's how that works:

Let's say you have a country with one city, population 1 million people. It has about 250,000 people living out in the country, growing food, etc, to feed the city people with.

So the politician that only needs a simple majority, will go plunk himself down in the city and tell all the urban dwellers that he'll get them free wifi at every corner and reduced prices at Starbucks and a subway train, and a bus system that actually works. . all issues that rock if you live in the city, but that you don't give a crap about if you don't. The poor schmuck out in the country who needs public water, and roads, and maybe a fire station or two, gets nothing because really, as long as the politician can lock up enough votes in the city, he doesn't have to worry about making the country folk happy.

Situation B, we have the electoral college. Now the politician has to run around making the country folks happy, because the country dwellers' votes get melded into 1 vote, and the city dwellers' votes get melded into 1 vote. Now, if the politician pisses off the guys in the country, he loses the election. And, the city dwellers count for something too, because if he loses their vote, he loses the election. So he has to make everyone happy.

The downside is that now 250,000 country-living people actually have more sway than 1 million city-living people. The country guys get the same say as the city guys even though they're only 1/4 as many people, which means each country individual's vote actually counts for more than each city individual's.

So each system has good bits and a downside. Which do you prefer?

08-07-2008, 07:29 PM	#12 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	Two schools of thought, and since I'm a journalist I get to be an asshole and not tell you which one I agree with Situation A: Without the electoral college, city issues would trump rural issues. Here's how that works: Let's say you have a country with one city, population 1 million people. It has about 250,000 people living out in the country, growing food, etc, to feed the city people with. So the politician that only needs a simple majority, will go plunk himself down in the city and tell all the urban dwellers that he'll get them free wifi at every corner and reduced prices at Starbucks and a subway train, and a bus system that actually works. . all issues that rock if you live in the city, but that you don't give a crap about if you don't. The poor schmuck out in the country who needs public water, and roads, and maybe a fire station or two, gets nothing because really, as long as the politician can lock up enough votes in the city, he doesn't have to worry about making the country folk happy. Situation B, we have the electoral college. Now the politician has to run around making the country folks happy, because the country dwellers' votes get melded into 1 vote, and the city dwellers' votes get melded into 1 vote. Now, if the politician pisses off the guys in the country, he loses the election. And, the city dwellers count for something too, because if he loses their vote, he loses the election. So he has to make everyone happy. The downside is that now 250,000 country-living people actually have more sway than 1 million city-living people. The country guys get the same say as the city guys even though they're only 1/4 as many people, which means each country individual's vote actually counts for more than each city individual's. So each system has good bits and a downside. Which do you prefer?