No argument from me. Sure. But, even in a utopian world where everyone can and does vote, in the current electoral system, a voter in Vermont has a higher value than one in California. That's not right.
No they wouldn't. Running for office is all about money. Votes in more populated areas would be worth more than votes in rural areas. Investing dollars in a city like Philadelphia or Miami would be a better value than investing in Oklahoma City.
gerrymandering - manipulate the boundaries of (an electoral constituency) so as to favor one party or class. By essentially removing state lines and expanding the Presidential election to just be by popular vote, you're heavily favoring the Democrats, no?
Each person's vote will have exactly the same weight to anyone elses - how they decide to cast it is up to them. If a voter in OKC will choose to cast her/his vote based on the amount of dollars a candidate spent near them - so be it, if they choose to cast it based on the candidate's knowledge of the Simpsons, that's fine too - the important thing is that it is going to be exactly the same weight as anyone else in the country.
Actually, I think it will cause a bigger wave in conservative votes. People in Blue states who's votes are nullified by the electoral college will be more likely to vote rather than stay home. It will also cause them to vote conservative in local elections as well. Instead of writing off places like California, conservative groups will pour tons of money to get their voices heard in these areas that were once a waste of time to put any effort into. So yeah, go ahead, abolish the Electoral College. Like most things with dems, their shortsightedness will fuck them over in the end and we'll all have a good laugh at their expense.
As an answer in a Utopian world where everyone has the same rights and the same opportunities, no. As a way to right a wrong that takes a long time to right (in other words, a way to speed the process to create that same rights and same opportunities world) - yes. Where we are in the process I really do not know.
Forget Hillary effin' Clinton. Let's take 2 states that voted for her - to remove the republican / democrat issue. in 2016 - 14,181,595 people voted in the California, a state with 55 electoral votes. In Vermont, 315,065 people voted, for 3 electoral votes. If we divide the number of electoral votes by the number of voters (I do not have the eligible voters, but if someone is willing to provide these numbers we can use them instead) - a vote in California was worth only 60% of the vote in Vermont. There is no reasonable way to claim that it is just and right that a voter in Norwich VT is worth more than a voter in Baker, CA.
Really? I went to the Bernie rally. I met Barack when he campaigned for Kitz. They come here every cycle.
This was the point I was trying to make. The way the current EC works has the exact same end result as gerrymandering districts within a state. Getting rid of the EC in today's world would be the antithesis of gerrymandering. Like I said before though, I am undecided on the EC issue. We want every vote to count equally, but we also don't want to create vast swaths of political hinterlands . It is tricky.
My feelings have nothing to do with it. You said that the EC is the definition of gerrymandering, which is silly. manipulate the boundaries of (an electoral constituency) so as to favor one party or class. The states weren't created to favor any party, but removing the EC would HEAVILY favor the democrats, no?
You're doing fuzzy math again. Each state is assigned a number of electoral votes according to its population. The number of electoral votes is set at 538. Each state receives one electoral vote for the number of members it has in the House of Representatives; this accounts for 435 of the 538 electoral votes.
The EC was not created for this purpose obviously. However, in today's world, it does indeed give rural areas more political punch per person than more populated areas. Getting rid of the EC would, at this point, negate some of that inequality.
I can't wait until they do this. "Why didn't Kamala Harris campaign in Oregon at all?" Answer: Because California is more important, bitches!
