04-02-2019, 09:31 PM
(04-02-2019, 09:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So the say is weighted? I just disagree with the notion that each state shouldn't have a say; regardless how big or small, when we elect a President of the United States.
Were we more in line with the Articles of Confederation, I'd agree. But we're not.
And let's be clear, the EC isn't all about states' rights. It is also about helping slave states get more votes (because it was based on apportionment, which included slaves being counted) as well as the idea that the voting public wouldn't know who was running for president. Therefore, they voted for an elector, someone they would know because they were local, to make the decision on their behalf.
It's an antiquated system that is made even worse by greater population disparities giving some people's votes twice, or even thrice the weight of others. It also causes presidential campaigns to ignore large swaths during the general election and only focus on key battleground states. Whereas if every individual vote mattered, a Democratic candidate wouldn't just ignore a state because it went Republican and vice versa.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
