04-03-2019, 02:39 PM
(04-03-2019, 01:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.
The only way the EC should be kept is if all votes are equal among voters. If you have any state where it takes twice as many citizens to make up an electoral vote compared to another state, then it is an undemocratic institution. Right now we have states where it takes four times as many people as other states. This is an inequitable process. No person's vote should count more than another person's.
(04-03-2019, 01:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.
Clinton didn't lose for ignoring the rural areas, she ignored the rust belt. But the focus in the rust belt is still in more urban areas, the industrial centers. To go the rural route there is inefficient for a campaign. They just don't do it. There is no incentive to go to rural areas now, and no incentive for them to pay attention to their plights, now.
(04-03-2019, 01:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.
To be fair, my campaign against the EC began after Gore lost. That being said, that was also when I was 15 and really just starting to pay attention to these sorts of things. I was also a libertarian type in my teen years, so that was likely a big reason.
So by utilizing a winner-take-all system, we discount the votes of millions of people. A Republican in your state has a wasted vote. A Democrat in Mississippi has a wasted vote. This goes back to my viewpoint that every vote should count equally, which is the cornerstone of my position. Right now that does not happen.
In the spirit of the debates of the Constitutional Convention, how would you feel about allocation based on House District, with the two remaining Electors being allocated with a state overall vote, much like the way seats are handled in Congress?
"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
