(November 14, 2016 at 3:00 pm)Cato Wrote: An election strictly based on popular vote would concentrate all the electoral power in 11 or so of the most populous states, these in turn determined by the their most populated cities. The alienation of entire swaths of people make this scheme untenable.
It wouldn't though, because states do not vote the same way, and it wouldn't be states voting, it would be people. It shouldn't matter where you live, your vote for President should count as much as anyone else's.
For the "alienation of entire swaths of people" to be an issue, you first have to explain why you think these people should get more of a vote than anyone else. What legitimate reason do rural people have for their vote counting more than urban people, for the President of the United States. Are urban people not citizens of the same country? Why do they get a reduced voting power simply because they live in a populated area?
Besides, the electoral college cares not about where people live, just the size of the state. A state could literally have a tiny population, but 99% of that population live in one big urban area, and those urbanites would have more powerful votes than people living in highly populated states with plenty of rural areas.
The whole "urban vs rural" argument just doesn't make any sense to me.
Quote:I prefer apportioning electoral votes rather than the 'winner take all' rules in 48 states. I think this would more closely align electoral votes with the popular vote while maintaining the balance of power sought in the original construction of the provision. Each state has the power to enact this scheme without the need for a Constitutional Amendment.
That would be better, but you still have the problem of giving smaller states more power for no good reason.
