By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
EnricoPallazzo on 20 July 2020
Edit Thread
sundin13 said:
EnricoPallazzo said:

Actually for a huge country like US, Brazil, Russia etc the electoral college makes a lot of sense. Its a long discussion, but US is mainly populated in the coasts, which is overwhelmingly blue. But since you akso need the votes for less populated states your politics neess to also address these people. The day electoral college passes in US you can be sure those states in the middle of the country will be totally forgotten and thebrepublican party will never be elected again.

Its a long discussion, but keep in mind it only makes sese because it is a huge country and with a huge unbalance of population per state.

But isn't that, like, the entire point of the Senate? The role of the Senate is to ensure that every state is represented by the federal government. It simply doesn't make sense to weigh votes for president in non-equal ways to fill this purpose when this purpose is already filled.

That said, I also don't agree with your premise. It would be far more difficult for a president to win the popular vote if they disregarded the entire middle of the country. Even for Clinton, millions of votes came from these states. On the contrary, as we are now, the interests of a select few swing states are the only ones that actually matter in a presidential general election. Why should a Republican presidential candidate try to appeal to voters in Cali? Why should a Dem candidate try to appeal to voters in Kentucky? Hell, why should anyone do anything for a state whose result is already essentially ensured? The specific interests of these states already aren't being adequately met by our current candidates as a result of the electoral college system. Switching to a popular vote system could make it more important for a president to establish a broad coalition instead of a highly specific one...

I think you have a good point here about the senate and this is true as long as the senate results follow the electoral college for the specific state. I truly do not know how common it would be for a state to have voted red but have a blue representative in the senate.

As for your last argument, I still think that since most of the population is present in the coats, you just need to cater for their needs and forget the people in the middle. But yes you are right that the swing states end up being more important in the fight.