Quote:
Originally Posted by Over
It's still not clear to me the need to elect someone to represent a state in a presidential lection. Couldn't they just count each state votes and then ad them up? (sure, it would take days at the time, but I don't think that would be too inconvenient).
Anyway, we're in the 21st century, surely te reasoning behind that system is outdated?
radioflyertoo, basically, you're talking about 1st and 2nd class citizens, ones whose votes should really cout and others that don't. I understand the reasoning: how many times did I think how certain people shouldn't be able to vote and how I have to suffer certain outcomes voted by fools... But I'm more afraid about that liberty control.
I mean, a whole state can vote A and it's representative could vote B? Am I the only one that thinks that's outrageous? It's so much easier to corrupt a single representative than fool a whole state, I would guess!
|
The electoral college was a compromise between the needs of big states and little states, the same as the congress was set up. (The number of electors was the number of house seat + the number of senate seats, per state)
Obsolete? Look at a county election map of the 2004 US election. The majority of people living in 88% of the land mass of the US voted for GW. The Democratic votes were limited to mostly dense urban environments. Question, is
all the nation better served by decisions made of, by and for dense urban environments? Decisions that are great for the urban lifestyle may be damaging for the non-urban lifestyle. How do you draw a balance?