Are you for abolishing it or would you want to keep it and why?
The common argument for the Electoral College is it helps the sparsely populated farming states gain representation. Without this system, we are told, candidates would spend all their time in New York, Chicago and LA.
In the first place, I don't see why a vote should count more just because someone lives in a sparsely populated area. Secondly, major cities aren't voting blocks that think in lockstep. Even if you won all three cities, that's still only 10-15% of the population.
The most effective rebuttal to that argument is the Electoral College concentrates the attention of candidates. It doesn't diffuse their attention as it is supposed to. It completely works against its own stated purpose.
As it stands now, I'll never see any candidate's smiling face in person unless he's got a layover in his flight to a swing state (even with Obama's 50-state strategy, we never saw either him or McCain). Everyone knows my state will go Republican no matter what, so one party will take us for granted while the other will write us off. Because of "winner take all" there's no motive to push for a close election in any state that you can't win.
As it stands now, all the attention goes to Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, the three largest swing states that seem to determine every presidential election. So even assuming the Electoral College's mission was a good one, it still fails since it accomplishes the opposite.
The common argument for the Electoral College is it helps the sparsely populated farming states gain representation. Without this system, we are told, candidates would spend all their time in New York, Chicago and LA.
In the first place, I don't see why a vote should count more just because someone lives in a sparsely populated area. Secondly, major cities aren't voting blocks that think in lockstep. Even if you won all three cities, that's still only 10-15% of the population.
The most effective rebuttal to that argument is the Electoral College concentrates the attention of candidates. It doesn't diffuse their attention as it is supposed to. It completely works against its own stated purpose.
As it stands now, I'll never see any candidate's smiling face in person unless he's got a layover in his flight to a swing state (even with Obama's 50-state strategy, we never saw either him or McCain). Everyone knows my state will go Republican no matter what, so one party will take us for granted while the other will write us off. Because of "winner take all" there's no motive to push for a close election in any state that you can't win.
As it stands now, all the attention goes to Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, the three largest swing states that seem to determine every presidential election. So even assuming the Electoral College's mission was a good one, it still fails since it accomplishes the opposite.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
