To be fair, no other democracy is even close to the size of the US. Most countries aren’t spread out enough for an electoral college to make a grain of sense.
And a coastal state with a huge population and no understanding of things people in a landlocked state 700 miles away shouldn’t get to have more of a say in who controls the country. Without the electoral college, pretty much every president would come from one of the same 5 states every time, and the rest of the country would always get placed on the back burner, because “they never win elections”.
Each state should have more of an equal say in who the president is.
Putting aside the absurdity of the idea that people’s voices should be worth less if they live closer together… One of the most significant features of the electoral college is the existence of a handful of swing states. You don’t want a situation where the most populous 5 states decide every election, so your solution is to take like 5 less populous states and have them decide every election. Genius.
There’s currently about 5 to 7 swing states because that’s currently how all the other areas vote, and those change a lot more often than population by state. By your argument of doing away with the electoral college, California, new York, Texas, and Florida would decide the elections and no one running for office would care about doing anything in about 40 states.
Areas with larger populations would have more influence, because there are more people there to represent. That’s how democracy works. It’s not, I don’t know, landocracy.
But every vote would be equal, so there would be more incentive than there is now to campaign across a wider cross section of people, including in less populated areas, because as it is now, the majority of those areas are in safe states where there is zero advantage whatsoever to a politician trying to win their votes.
You only think in short terms. You have a problem now, so you want it changed now. Later, it will turn into a bigger problem and you’ll want it changed again, only it will be harder.
You think the answer to get democrats to win is to change a process to something that would currently benefit democrats. There’s no reason to believe that it would continue to benefit democrats after the change, and it also doesn’t get rid of the 2 party system, because while the demols are a bit better overall for most of the country, both parties are still bought and owned by the wealthy. The rich have been on a downward tax paying slide for the last 75 years, regardless of who was in office.
To be fair, no other democracy is even close to the size of the US. Most countries aren’t spread out enough for an electoral college to make a grain of sense.
Canada right next for is larger than US lol
Geography has nothing to do with it. If your state has more electoral votes per capita than mine, then my vote doesn’t count as much as yours.
And a coastal state with a huge population and no understanding of things people in a landlocked state 700 miles away shouldn’t get to have more of a say in who controls the country. Without the electoral college, pretty much every president would come from one of the same 5 states every time, and the rest of the country would always get placed on the back burner, because “they never win elections”.
Each state should have more of an equal say in who the president is.
Putting aside the absurdity of the idea that people’s voices should be worth less if they live closer together… One of the most significant features of the electoral college is the existence of a handful of swing states. You don’t want a situation where the most populous 5 states decide every election, so your solution is to take like 5 less populous states and have them decide every election. Genius.
There’s currently about 5 to 7 swing states because that’s currently how all the other areas vote, and those change a lot more often than population by state. By your argument of doing away with the electoral college, California, new York, Texas, and Florida would decide the elections and no one running for office would care about doing anything in about 40 states.
Areas with larger populations would have more influence, because there are more people there to represent. That’s how democracy works. It’s not, I don’t know, landocracy.
But every vote would be equal, so there would be more incentive than there is now to campaign across a wider cross section of people, including in less populated areas, because as it is now, the majority of those areas are in safe states where there is zero advantage whatsoever to a politician trying to win their votes.
You only think in short terms. You have a problem now, so you want it changed now. Later, it will turn into a bigger problem and you’ll want it changed again, only it will be harder.
You think the answer to get democrats to win is to change a process to something that would currently benefit democrats. There’s no reason to believe that it would continue to benefit democrats after the change, and it also doesn’t get rid of the 2 party system, because while the demols are a bit better overall for most of the country, both parties are still bought and owned by the wealthy. The rich have been on a downward tax paying slide for the last 75 years, regardless of who was in office.
B-But… BIG country! BIG people. BIGLY BIG. It just won’t work. /s
Well, the UK. Although the UK is a constitutional Monarchy and the prime minister isn’t elected by popular vote, but by MPs