Quote:
Originally Posted by Ooloo
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
By this logic you might as well break down the entire country by household. Each household can be a separate state!
The electoral college exists for a very good reason, which is that life in los angeles and nyc is completely different than life in rural nebraska. The geographic designations aren't arbitrary at all. The founding fathers understood this, which is why our country is not a pure democracy. Pure democracy is just mob rule.
|
This is nonsense lol, the electoral college has roots in realpolitik during the formation of the union and its early years, used for various reasons such as enticing small or sparsely populated states into the union, and dealing with the balance of power between slave states and northern states during the era of the 3/5 compromise.
Eliminating the electoral college isn't pure democracy, it's still a representative republic, except the representatives and president are actually chosen by votes of equal power, rather than a Democrat in Georgia's vote being worth 1000x more than a Republican in California.
Stop pretending like it's about anything other than giving disproportionate power to voters in empty states. Yes, rural and metropolitan voters have different issues, but that doesn't mean rural voters should be given power over metropolitan voters. You seem happy with the belief that the electoral college 'protects' rural life, but you don't seem to give a fuck about what effect having presidents and senators chosen by a handful of ranchers in Wyoming has on the places where everyone actually lives, nor do you take issue with the fact that there are more Republicans in California than the entire Midwestern United States, and all their votes mean absolutely nothing.