fatslob-:O said:
I'm fine with Trump being our commander-in-chief ... Many of the 39 smaller states should not be willingly ignored at the mercy of the 11 biggest states (electoral vote wise) since the founding fathers feared tyranny by the majority ... While smaller states do get higher vote weighting relative to the population, it's not a bad idea since states with higher amount of electoral votes have disproportionate power in swinging an election ... |
Good for you if you like Trump. I specifically tried to keep me comment separate from any specific elections (such as this one), and instead talked on a general level. I just don't think the system is very good, no matter who wins.
There's better ways to get around (geographical) tyranny of the majority, if that's what you're worried about. Probably the easiest way is to have votes in different states have different weights, but otherwise have each vote count directly. Weighing states differently seems to essentially be the part of the electoral college that you're defending, so it shouldn't be a problem.
Personally I think tyranny of the majority is a troublematic concept for several reasons, and I don't necessarily think anything should even be tried to be done about it. That said, the above still seems like a valid solution to geographical tyranny of the majority. What we have for parliamentary elections here is pretty close to it, and it's working pretty well, I think. Ironically, it's the power it grants less populated areas that I find problematic about it. It makes getting elected in some election areas much, much more difficult than in others, and even some quite popular politicians have suffered for it, I think (if I recall correctly, the leader of a party didn't get elected because of that 'somewhat recently').
