04-03-2019, 01:57 PM
(04-03-2019, 12:31 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, it is different. Because in the case of the Senate it is offset by the House of Representatives. There is no offset for the EC. The whole reason the EC was created was to have a body similar to Congress to make the decision, but not Congress because of separation of powers. However, the disparity between the populations was never as great as it is now, the number of individuals an Elector represented was never this great, and the winner-take-all system in place in most states makes it worse. This also gets into my argument in favor of a sizeable expansion of the HoR, though, so I'll stop here. Tl;dr: representation in this country is piss poor and needs to be fixed.
The disparity in population you cite, correctly, is a cornerstone of my argument. I would have no problem with an expansion of the HoR to provide more equal representation in the form of EC votes. But eliminating it altogether would be a tremendous error IMO.
Quote:Rural places are ignored, now, in the general. Campaigns focus their attention on where they will get the most bang for their buck. This won't shift the attention from one place to another, it will expand it. I agree it won't solve the problem altogether, but it isn't the wash you make it out to be.
Hillary ignored rural areas and it cost her the election. I don't think you'll see future candidates make the same error, at least in the immediate future. A pure popular vote POTUS election will see the vast majority of states completely ignored by candidates and if you can safely ignore an area and still et elected what incentive is there for you to address the problems being faces by the peoples of those areas? If we're talking about compassionate people then there'd always be a humane reason for doing so, but forgive me for being a bit cynical about presidential candidates in this regard.
Quote:Would you agree that the winner-take-all system for Electors is an issue?
No, as proportioning the EC votes is almost the same as a popular vote total, it's basically a distinction without a difference. I like the current system as it prevents regionalism to the degree it is possible to do so. Also, let's be real about this, the only reason most people are even having this discussion is because they're bitter that Hillary lost. I know you're not one of those people but most of the people making the abolish the EC argument are. I'm never going to be in favor of changing the rules because the person I like didn't win under the current ones. It's the same reason I would vehemently oppose any SCOTUS court packing efforts should the Dems win in 2020.
