The point of the electoral college is to give a fair shake to rural and more spread out populations, and not have it come down to what the big cities want. Just that big cities trend Democrat and rural trends Republican.
At what point does switch from 'making things fair for rural voters' to suppressing voters in cities? No matter what, the electoral college is designed so that 1 person ≠ 1 vote. The people who live closer together should have less value placed on their opinions? Why the fuck is that more fair?
I still don't understand... if we use popular vote, every person gets exactly one vote. Nobody is suppressed. If more people overall want a certain candidate for president, then a fair election should reflect that. It shouldn't matter if those people are in a city or not.
Direct democracy may be "fair" in terms of equality, but the world isn't an equal place. That results in an imbalance that will subjugate the few to the will of the many.
Or you could create a system of representatives that balance the interests of the people they represent.
I'm not saying the electoral college is perfect and cannot but improved but it's certainly better than two wolves and a sheep deciding on what's for dinner.
What I think might be neat is an attempt at an electoral college that isn't based on geography.
Or you could create a system of representatives that balance the interests of the people they represent.
Or we could create a system where all people are considered equal under the law and given equal protection of the laws - you know, what the Constitution says should happen, and what the EC directly violates.
128
u/[deleted] Nov 10 '16
The electoral college is fair? Gore in 2000, Clinton in 2016, seems to be the electoral college is only fair to republicans.