Shadow1980 said:
Did you read my whole post? Why should the vote of someone in Wyoming or Vermont matter three times more than someone living in Texas or California? Furthermore, while the EC does greatly amplify the voting power of voters in low-population states, it doesn't make them politically relevant. As I mentioned, only three of the 25 least-populated states get any attention from presidential candidates in the general election, and that's because they're the only ones that are competitive. The only thing the EC succeeds in doing is distorting the rightful outcome of an election, which should always be based on the principle of "one person, one vote." It should be about individual citizens, not polygons on a map. The president uniquely represents the whole of the American people, and should do so equally.
As I mentioned, none of those countries have executive presidents. They have parliamentary systems where the president is a ceremonial officer. The U.S. is the only nation with a full or semi-presidential system that elects its president indirectly. I would say that I could maybe, maybe deal with the EC being a thing if WTA were abolished. And I don't mean moving to the Nebraska-Maine Rule where the statewide vote winner gets two votes, with the rest determined by who wins the most votes in each congressional district, because that's still exceedingly unrepresentative as well because of geographical flukes in how population is distributed, plus it would be susceptible to gerrymandering. EC votes should be awarded proportionally, so if a candidate gets x% of the state's popular vote then it should get approximately x% of its electoral votes. That would mean that Hillary Clinton would have gotten 15-16 of Texas' 36 EC votes while Trump would have gotten 17 of California's 55 EC votes. I would still also insist that electoral votes be allocated proportionally by population among the states as well, instead of each state getting two electors with the remaining 438 being allocated by population. Of course, at this point you might as well ditch the whole system and go with a popular vote. |
Go ahead and abolish the EC. No more EC means Democratic Presidency going forward period. All it will take is 8 years of further left Democratic Presidency, which wouldn't be out of the question, with another 4-8 following that, and you can basically guarantee the red states that aren't getting their way because they have no chance, will break off. What you likely end up with is a new Country being formed right down the center of America. A Country who is a roadblock between the east and west, has most of the food, and most of the guns. It won't take long after this for things to get worked out and the EC put back in place, in order for the country to become one again. That depends on how much the coastal states are willing to compromise, because after pushing the central red states to go to all this trouble, they aren't just going to come back together without turning back the clock to where the country stood when the EC was last in place.
