Quote:
Originally posted by Kadath
Sorry to cut 90% of your post, but you've got this backwards. This is the effect of the electoral college. Not everyone in a state thinks the same way, but the electoral college allows the majority of a state to silence the rest. Taking PA as an example, the two cities of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia are primarily liberal. The rest of the state is primarily conservative. The electoral college allows the greater population to grab the votes. If we had a straight popular vote, everyone would get a voice. I honestly don't know how people can be for the EC. As for politicians spending most of their time on population centers, that's generally what's going to happen anyway, because they can talk to the most people there. They want to get their message to more people so more people will decide to vote for them, regardless of whether we use the EC or not. You're just not going to get a politician spending time in North Haverbrook (population 225) unless it's a move to show he cares about the people.
|
The fact that states are all or nothing is another flaw of the electoral college but that doesn't change my initial arguments that you need something in a fair election system to maintain fairness between urban and rural areas. If we didn't have some form of an electoral college there would be probably 15-20 states that would NEVER see a presidential canidate. In fact those 15-20 states would basically have no say at all in any federal election. And thus the sovernty of the states would be lost. Remember that the US started as a union between states and still maintains that status. Many governments (state) under one federal government with a strong destinction between state and federal power (ie protect the rights of the states).