Can someone explain how ending the electoral college would stop rural Americans from being “heard”?
Your vote, the only one any citizen is entitled to, would go to the candidate of your choice.
- οικοςLv 711 months agoFavorite Answer
It wouldn't. It's just that the less populated states now have a louder voice than the more populated ones. We'd have to go to [GASP!] One person, one vote.
- FoofaLv 711 months ago
If you're cool with letting NYC and L.A. select every future President then that would be your desire. It's not just states at this point, it's mere cities that have the populations to sway national elections. The best scenario would be to break out of this two-party stranglehold and have a number of viable parties (the way every other developed country does). The DNC/RNC template just doesn't represent the majority anymore.
- Man AbrierLv 511 months ago
If you do away with the Electoral College, why not do away with the Senate? They're based on the same principle: equal representation. Every State gets 2 senators, to balance out the population representation of the House.
While you're at it, why not just abolish everything and go for mob rule?
- Digital OneLv 711 months ago
Choose whatever deceptive ear tickler you like.
They will all have faults that will mess something up bad.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- CliveLv 711 months ago
It wouldn't, but what the electoral college does is give smaller states a bigger voice just for being a state, something the small states insisted on back in 1787. So your vote carries more weight if you live in a rural area. Going for the popular vote would reduce the "clout" of the rural USA, but obviously not end it altogether.
Actually a bigger problem with the electoral college is the way none of the states allocate their electoral votes in proportion to the people's vote, so unless you live in a "swing state", your vote doesn't really count at all. Go for proportional representation counting and you'd get closer to the popular vote while still keeping the bias to small states that the electoral college was intended to create.
- jakemcclakeLv 711 months ago
It wouldn't but it would give the rural states far less say in choosing a President.
Perhaps as it should be.
- u_bin_calledLv 711 months ago
In 2016, Hillary barely campaigned in the Midwest because she assumed all she needed to do was appeal in NY and CA....her platform was almost entirely based on the 'hot-button' media-driven issues from the largest TV markets...
Without the Electoral College, that would become the norm....you'd have the residents of three or four urban areas deciding on the President...often outvoting the other voters in their own states.... You'd have Chicago residents deciding farm policy, voters in NYC deciding on trade deals that affect miners in New Mexico...One block of apartments in Philadelphia could outvote every family farmer in Iowa...
... if that's OK with you, let's call a "do over" on Prop 8 and let the majority decide what they want to affirm as "marriage?" I mean, one person one vote...right? it's not the majority's fault that those other folks only make up 3%-12% of the population...right?
the stock response will be...."you idiot! the Constitution guarantees minority rights!"
exactly.... which is why the Constitution included the Electoral College to ensure that minority voices have their rights protected too....
- MercuriLv 711 months ago
For some reason people think that because a lot of people live in cities and those tend to be liberal that their vote should count less or something. They'll do all sorts of mental gymnastics to say that GEOGRAPHY should determine elections rather than 1 person 1 vote but for some reason they're 100% fine with 12 swing states making the big decision.
I think what it really comes down to is that they don't think they could win a fair election by popular vote.
- 11 months ago
If you liked "The Hunger Games" you will love the popular vote. The three largest American cities will run the entire country from now on.
- regeruggedLv 711 months ago
Wrong. The electoral college is there to prevent a few large population centers from controlling elections. It is a good idea and has stood the test of time.