irstupid said:
Your video just explains why the two party system exists, which is common senes. Has nothign to do with Electoral college. Anyone who thinks that Electorate system is wrong is not thinking of the bigger picture and thinking simple. Let's think of something simple that we could probably all relate to. Highschool and extra curicular activites. Lets say there is a arts, balley, football, chess and gardening club that are part of the school activities. They meet once a year to discuss funding for each program. Lets have our 100% democratic way of voting. Okay, so each person in each club gets ONE vote. Problem is, there is 100 football players and only 52 members of all the other clubs combined. Thus the football club gets to unanimously decide every single year what the budget gets put to. Now with a electoral system (the democratic republic that we have) we give each group a certain value. Say the arts get 1, balley get 2, chess gets 1, gardening 1 and football 4. Now even if 100% of the football club votes 1 way, they don't have mob rule. the other classes if they all vote the same will outnumber the football club. That is how our electoral college works and how it should work. It gives teh minority a vote. Without the electoral college we woudl rely on Chicago, New York, La, Houston and a couple other HUGE cities to decide what every single other city, coutny, town, ect in teh entire united states would want. Do you really think that a New Yorker is voting for waht is in the best interest for a farmer in Idaho? Do you really think a LA person is going to be putting someone in office that will be looking out for the small town business owner in Kentuky? Look at teh recent ACA that was brought into Law back in 2010 or something. Many times it took HUGE promises of federal money/subsidies/ect before a state would have its congressment be happy. So can we easily see that the same woudl happen. You would have New York or other get huge subsidies for something and screw over Nebraska. But who cares. Nebraska has no vote. All teh vote is in New York and LA and other big cities. THey would pander 100% to them and make likfe easy for them. Minnesota right now is seeing HUGE, I repeat HUGE increases in premiums for health care. Do you tink they might want a voice in the election? But if we go away with the electoral system MN would be completely ignored. Heck even though it has the twin cities, it is still basically a "fly over state" that means not much when it comes to election time. |
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k&list=PLEcHCTVM79BMISVn4AV5EXSglGDzRgwgG&index=8
Take a quick look at 2:05. It is currently fully possible for a candidate to completely ignore large swaths of the country, as they are not swing states.
What you describe is a problem of Democracy in general; it represents a majority, not all. Coalition governments can help with that (which appear in proportional systems).
A proportional system encourages candidates to please as many people as possible.
I do believe that the opinion of 5 times as many people matters 5 times as much.
I'll get into the specifics later, have to go.
Bet with PeH:
I win if Arms sells over 700 000 units worldwide by the end of 2017.
Bet with WagnerPaiva:
I win if Emmanuel Macron wins the french presidential election May 7th 2017.