Zkuq said:
Nuvendil said:
The United States was designed with a pseudo-federation concept of State and Federal power balance. As the founding fathers put it, the country was intended as a "sovreign nation of many sovreign states." The Electoral system is there to make sure the interests of the States are represented in the Presidential elections, not just the interests of the masses. If the popular vote was all that mattered, the interests of the top 10 states would be hugely disproportionately represented in Presidential elections. And the size of our country, the diversity of demographics in each State, the variation in economic strength and resources, etc etc. means those interests can be very different. With a straight popular vote, if a candidate won the top 7 or so states by a land slide, it's entirely possible they could lose in every other state but win regardless. That means 43 states' interests are completely dumped in the bin.
Also, not only can 3rd parties and new parties win, in the past it has happened numerous times. The 20th century was really the time of the rise and fortification of strict bipartisanism. Before then, there had been 3rd parties and new parties to win. There is reform that needs doing, but the big issue is not the EC, it's the regulation of funding. The fact is that as it stands, the two major parties just have so much more money than third parties do. The spending just needs to be more tightly regulated so that more parties can be competitive.
|
A good start would be to get rid of the whole 'the winner takes it all' thing. If the winner of one state gets, say, 51 % of the votes, and the loser gets 49 %, why should all the electors go to the winner? Even the loser should get something because it's a close call. It would also make every single vote count. If no one gets the majority of electors in the first round, have a second round with only the top two candidates.
|
No, in life its either you win or you lose. Do or don't there is no try.
