View Post
the-pi-guy said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

The Electoral College is meant to be broadly representative to the population in each state, and without it, the smaller, less populated states loose all their influence and fall into obscurity.

Several countries have similar mechanics to the electoral college, and it's working well there. Why? Because they don't have winner takes all! Abolish Winner takes all/make it unconstitutional, and you'll see that every vote will count. Even better, votes to third parties wouldn't be lost votes anymore, making way to more nuanced politics as these also finally would get their weight and say in the US.

Something I would point out is that interests are rarely divided into big states and small states, but urban vs rural.  

The issue with the electoral college as it is, is that it causes rural votes in blue states to not get counted, and it causes urban votes in red states to not get counted.  Having the electoral college gone would lead Republican votes in California and Democratic votes in say Alabama would actually matter.  

That's not because of the electoral college - that's because the winner takes all.

Another point of the electoral college which often gets overlooked is to ensure that every state will have it's representatives. Remove the electoral college, and it becomes a luck-based mission for all the smaller states as the more populous states and cities would gobble up most, if not all the spots. As a result, they would only cater for their states/cities, leaving most of the country in the dust. That's why even a tiny country like Luxembourg still has 4 voting districts to ensure every region of the country is accounted for.

Last edited by Bofferbrauer2 - on 28 June 2019