What are the origins of the American voting system?

[Nuvendil]

sc94597 said:

Nuvendil said:

On the flip side, the larger population States do account for more of the resources the Fed will use than smaller states so there is argument for larger states having overall larger impact than smaller states.  I find the idea of voting for your first, second, and third choices rather than just one interesting, but it does open up the possibility that a President could be elected who was no ones first choice, similar to how a president can technically win now without the popular vote.  Also, since your brought up Dual Federalism, the whole point of a balanced Dual Federalism - and why I support it -  is that even if your State's Presidential choice doesn't win, you're State government is determined by your decision and can offset undesired Federal decisions via State powers.  Which brings up the issue of growing Federal powers and how they are more and more stepping into areas where States should be making the call, but that's another topic for another thread.  But my point is, in a balanced Dual Federalism, the fact that a larger State has more pull in Presidential elections is not as big an issue and doesn't impact your State government's affairs. 

I think if we took the bolded to its logical conclusion it would imply that the rich (who give the overwhelming majority of tax revenue) should have more influence over the government than others. I am not sure that a state like New York should have more say over immigration policy, for example, than a state like New Mexico or Arizona where the policy more directly affects the lives of the people who live there.

I think it is alright for a president to be elected who is no ones first choice, as long as the people had a chance to vote for their first choice first. As it is right now, it is also possible for a majority of people to not vote for their first choice. People vote for the lesser of evils instead of their first choice because they feel as if their first choice has no chance of winning. At least in a run-off system they get to protest vote and bolster party support for future elections. 

I agree with your sentiment about dual federalism, and how the federal government is expanding. I disagree that a bigger state having more power can't affect the political reality of a smaller state. Immigration policy, warfare policy, trade policy, etc affect states disproportionally. Some people will not be represented in these federal powers if only large states had influence. That is why there was a compromise by having a senate  and a house.

I didn't say it was a perfect argument, just an argument.  And it's not just resources, it's everything.  Larger population states will account for a larger part of fit members of the draft if we went to war, for example.  And there's just plain more people there, so in the interests of representing the wills of the people to a degree, larger population centers should have more electors. 

As for large States effecting small states due to federal policies, there are two things to consider.  One is that some state some where is going to have its interests misrepresented, regardless of whether it is small states or large states.  And both are going to have words for you, whether they be that small states don't contribute what large ones do or that large states shouldn't be more important.  Also, as you pointed out, Congress brings that ballance with a House and a Senate, which hold more power than the President anyway.  A second thing to consider is that, whether by chance or design, our states most impacted by the policies you listed are also among our largest:  Texas, California, New York, Florida, etc are among the most effected and most vocal concerning things like trade and immigration (especially immigration). 

Also, you have to consider there are issues large, industrial States face that are not present in smaller States and thus could go unaddressed if the small States had influence disproportionate to their size, especially since there are more small states than large states.  Which is why I do think that a compromise where elector numbers are higher than small states but not necessarily directly proportionate to their state size (otherwise Wyoming, for example, would have less than 1 vote compared to California's since Wyoming 1/66 the population of California and of course, a much smaller economy and industrial pressence).  It's not a simple "small state's should have more power" situation.