In fact, the electoral college allows for district rezoning that can and does skew results in many states. Have you seen some of the erm oddly shaped districts? Anything that can eliminate the risks of manipulation needs to be considered, including elimination of the college.
Tha this not true, it is a winner take all system. Whoever wins the state gets all of its votes.
If large populations got to make all the decisions and elect all the officilas then we would be beholden to places like California Texas and Florida. I shutter at the tought of it. I can't stand the liberal economic policies of California or its herd like mob of hyper consumerists. They are farther in debt than any other state. This is a state that allowed slavery longer than any other state. Continued killing Native American in the 1940s and used chinese slaver as well as african slavery.
There is a problem with Gerrymandering.
This is where the real small-state vs large state issue comes into play and this was the biggest struggle the founders had in defining the idea of an electoral college.
The first hurdle they had to get past though was due largely in part to the issue of slave states, largely the southern states, who argued that because they had fewer people yet more wealth their votes should count for more somehow. Boy some things never change, eh? In the end a compromise had to be negotiated to even get them past this issue.
This is not true as all the states had slaves. This is the 1700s not 1860 America. The Protestant South did not want to be bent to the will of the Catholic North who had an enflux of immigrations from many places that did not even speak english (Italy and Poland) and voted for whoever their factory employer told them to vote for.
Large states do have more say in the congress and equal say in the senate. However the electorial college prevents the tryanny of the majority.
Look at it this way. On average, we know that people are dumb. Last election Bush won an overwelming majority of the population because all of the gay hating christian country bumpkins voted for him as did the wealthy who got his tax cuts. The more power taken away from the majority the better.
why even listen to the concerns of a smaller state when you know you can cater to the larger ones at their exspense.
The state example with counties could be taken at the federal level just make counties the states and the state the frederal gov. We had a war about this already.
I would like to see run off voting. If you just make it a strict popuar vote then you are reducing america to its lowest common denominator and that is pretty low. It would be a rule of the mob.
There is plenty of anecdotal reference to the amount of time and energy candidates spend on the larger states but no factual proof. And it is a logical assumption that if there were a populace vote this would cease if in fact it even exists. And if this is true, why the popularity of and focus on the states with disproportionate electoral votes in the primaries?
That makes no sense. There is proof that candidates spend more time in cetrtain larger states its is no secret you can just ask the candidates where they were. If it was a populous vote then it would be even worse. Because other states would not even matter. The entire West would not be worth the time it took to travel there. The government is over then land not just the people. We can lets hords dominate the outliying territories the way Greek city poluses turned their surounding towns into slaves and tools.
) on that map mean. I live in Erie County - the grey one in Western New York... just curious...
