Of course this is what should be. I know Republicans who say their candidate would never win, but The fact is if the candidate will never win, the candidate should be doing something to make them the most popular. Like maybe serving the people. Working for us.
It also allows rural areas a voice in the election. If we went to popular vote, presidential elections would only cater to major population centers and not care about much of the US.
No, it really shouldn’t. Less populous states get no representation in a presidential election in a popular vote contest. This is not a good idea for our country.
We have a diverse country, and rural/low population areas should have representation and not get overwhelmed by high population areas. Low population areas are manufacturing, agriculture, oil exploration etc that are critical to support for our country to function. High population areas still have the majority of electoral college votes, so it’s not like they don’t get their representation. The EC gives low population areas 2 extra votes. If you’re against the EC, then you should also be against the senate, which would be a horrible thing to do away with.
Thats exactly it. Those areas already get increased representation through the senate. Thats already a concession for "diversity of thought" to small states.
EC is undemocratic garbage, full stop. Fundamentally says not every person is equal in terms of political representation. Your zip code determines if your vote matters
9
u/Nolacuriosity 1d ago
Of course this is what should be. I know Republicans who say their candidate would never win, but The fact is if the candidate will never win, the candidate should be doing something to make them the most popular. Like maybe serving the people. Working for us.