The problem is that you “fundamentally” do not understand what I am saying. I know that the small states went to the constitutional convention and cried that they wouldn’t have any power in federal elections. So they got the EC. I get it.

However, that has somehow morphed into posters saying things like “we don’t want the top 20 metros to elect the President” or “rural voters can’t be ignored.”

These statements are asinine because they ignore the fact that the EC only benefits states with low populations. Not rural areas.

If you live in an “urban area” like Wilmington, DE, you benefit from the EC. If you live in a rural town in Texas, no benefit.

The EC is all about states, not urban vs rural areas. Hell, DC gets 3 electoral votes!

My contention is that the EC does more harm than good by putting a laser focus on certain areas during national elections. It alienates a lot of Americans, including rural and urban folks who don’t live in a handful of areas

3 ...

Report Post

Posted by FooManChoo

Member since Dec 2012

41824 posts

Posted on 10/9/18 at 5:31 pm to cahoots

quote:
My contention is that the EC does more harm than good by putting a laser focus on certain areas during national elections.

The intent is to give states a say in electing the President. In that sense, it has done a good job over the last few hundred years.

quote:
It alienates a lot of Americans

It alienates no one since all states allow for a popular vote to determine each states' chosen electors. Every vote counts the same in each state. Those who feel alienated are not alienated. Reality and how you feel about reality are often times different.

quote:
including rural and urban folks who don’t live in a handful of areas

Rural folk might still feel alienated with a NPV if due to limited time and resources Presidential candidates spend the vast majority of their time in inner cities vying for votes.

A NPV does not solve anything. It just shifts what you perceive as a problem from the states to the individuals.

If you're concerned about fairness, why not lobby for all state legislatures to take back responsibility for electing Presidents rather than allowing every person to vote? That would be equal, right? Every person votes for state representatives who in turn elect the President. Everyone gets a vote and every vote is equal.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by Antonio Moss

Baton Rouge

Member since Mar 2006

48338 posts

Posted on 10/9/18 at 5:35 pm to cahoots

quote:
The problem is that you “fundamentally” do not understand what I am saying.

I completely understand what you are saying; it’s just wrong.

quote:
I know that the small states went to the constitutional convention and cried that they wouldn’t have any power in federal elections. So they got the EC. I get it.

You are mixing up the discussions about the legislative branch with the EC. The EC combines both ideas of great compromise and the power of the subunits over the federal government.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by Taxing Authority

Houston

Member since Feb 2010

57440 posts

Posted on 10/9/18 at 5:46 pm to cahoots

quote:
My contention is that the EC does more harm than good by putting a laser focus on certain areas during national elections.

Your contention is does not match data. No intelligent politician would neglect populated centers for rural centers. That would be ... idiotic political suicide.