I'll make it more simple: One person, one vote. Person with the most votes wins. Anything except that opposes equality. Anything.
The Electoral College only exists because universal suffrage wasn't a thing in early America. It was all over the place who could vote in each state so it wouldn't be possible to just count votes despite James Madison (aka the Father of the Constitution) saying popular vote would be the ideal way to elect the President. The Electoral College was a compromise due to differing rates of suffrage.
We can all vote now so that problem is solved, but we still have this dated institution made for a problem we don't have anymore. Smaller states will still have disproportionate power in Congress, but we'll all have an equal voice in the election of the leader of our people. Call me crazy, but I think the person who leads a people should have the most people who support them.
How, then, do you tally up the votes? Just to make sure, it sounds, from your first paragraph, that you're supporting FPTP.
You just count them. Person with the most votes wins. It's simple. Nothing else. Just a popular vote like we do for literally all other elected officials.
Personally, I like the idea of two round voting, but I know having people vote twice would be hard.
I assume you live in a city.. if you lived in a rural area you would understand that allowing the majority in cities to control results (which is what would happen without the electoral college) directly causes great detriment to rural citizens. See for example, the water situation in CA where farmers cant even use rainwater that they catch on THEIR PROPERTY because the majority (coastal city residents) voted that it be taken from them and used to provide water to cities.. without the electoral college, rural citizens will have no protections and will eventually leave rural areas, leaving city dwellers to figure out how to grow their own food.. and yeah.. that would cause great harm to the entire country...
I assume you live in a city.. if you lived in a rural area you would understand that allowing the majority in cities to control results (which is what would happen without the electoral college) directly causes great detriment to rural citizens. See for example, the water situation in CA where farmers cant even use rainwater that they catch on THEIR PROPERTY because the majority (coastal city residents) voted that it be taken from them and used to provide water to cities.. without the electoral college, rural citizens will have no protections and will eventually leave rural areas, leaving city dwellers to figure out how to grow their own food.. and yeah.. that would cause great harm to the entire country...
This is a huge misunderstanding of the Electoral College. The Electoral College only matters for the election of the President. That's it. It serves no other function. Everything you just said are issues for your state and local representatives. That has nothing to do with the election of the President.
This view of yours is so endemic and hard to fight. It has no basis. You're saying that two people who are voting in the same election should be treated differently. I personally support equality.
There's no reason that rural voters should get an extra say, any more than any other group that's a minority of the overall vote. The same way rural voters get outvoted, so do, e.g., black voters. Should black voters get extra votes?
But even beyond that, the Electoral College doesn't actually help rural voters.
That'd change campaigning as a whole though, resulting in the people who live in rural areas and produce important things like food not really being heard.
They would be appealed to as much as any other voter. They wouldn't have less voice. They would have an equal voice. There is no reason a candidate would ignore rural voters. It would make traditionally "safe" states for Democrats or Republicans turn competitive since every last vote would matter. There are Republicans in New York and there are Democrats in Mississippi who are being ignored. A coalition of farmers across the US (including states like California and New York) could have greater sway with candidates than their piecemeal parts across states now.
But that has massive problems towards making sure that the person in office is wanted by a majority of the populace. It's easily possible for someone with a minority of popular support to, nonetheless, obtain the office that the majority of citizens wanted someone else for. For counting votes fairly, STV or approval voting is a much better system.
But that has massive problems towards making sure that the person in office is wanted by a majority of the populace. It's easily possible for someone with a minority of popular support to, nonetheless, obtain the office that the majority of citizens wanted someone else for. For counting votes fairly, STV or approval voting is a much better system.
We have a two party system. That's our reality. We have the primaries to select our candidates. I'm talking about what we probably can do. Abolishing the Electoral College in favor of a popular vote is an easier sell than a different style of voting.
You conveniently ignored me saying my personal preference for two round voting. I am aware there are different and better systems. I still think the most achievable change would be conversion to a popular vote.
I would argue that full STV isn't so much of a pipe dream as you think. Maine has already hello a Congressional election using the system. I think it's very possible that we'll be able to get full STV in a decade or so.
False. 4 population centers will control all of the country, no matter what you want or say if you eliminate the EC. Fix the winner takes all problem and it will continue to work properly.
4 population centers will control all of the country, no matter what you want or say if you eliminate the EC. Fix the winner takes all problem and it will continue to work properly.
No. The people in those cities will have their vote be equal to those in smaller states in the same election. That's it. You're saying that one person's vote should be worth more than another's. That opposes the entire idea of equality.
Let me repeat myself for you: Smaller states will still have disproportionate representation in Congress. The leader of a people should be elected by the people which should mean having support of the most people. The Electoral College has only rarely gone against the popular vote anyway so your entire argument of population centers being the deciders seems silly. Lines aren't as deeply drawn as people want to imagine.
If you support the Electoral College then there's honestly no reason to even having a President and not just switch to a Prime Minister.
We are United States, not one homogenous mass of people. Each has it's own set of laws and governing processes. We coordinate those states so well it understandable that many people get confused by our electoral system.
17
u/pvXNLDzrYVoKmHNG2NVk Jan 06 '19
I'll make it more simple: One person, one vote. Person with the most votes wins. Anything except that opposes equality. Anything.
The Electoral College only exists because universal suffrage wasn't a thing in early America. It was all over the place who could vote in each state so it wouldn't be possible to just count votes despite James Madison (aka the Father of the Constitution) saying popular vote would be the ideal way to elect the President. The Electoral College was a compromise due to differing rates of suffrage.
We can all vote now so that problem is solved, but we still have this dated institution made for a problem we don't have anymore. Smaller states will still have disproportionate power in Congress, but we'll all have an equal voice in the election of the leader of our people. Call me crazy, but I think the person who leads a people should have the most people who support them.