| Zkuq said: 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'). |
Are you implying that we have electoral votes be split popular vote wise per each state ? It sounds like a good idea at first when you realize 3rd parties are more likely to prevent the leading two parties from reaching 270 electoral votes which would cause us to go in limbo ...
Tyranny through majority is a very real thing when the entire population cannot be trusted to protect the rights of minorities. There's a reason why the founding fathers created America to be a federal republic and not a pure democracy. While several electoral systems give more power relative to less populated areas I think that is meant to be a defense against the voices of more populated areas so it may be harder to win certain elections but once it happens at least it's justified with some multipartisan support ...
