Even I’m not sure. You seem to have a black and white view of the world. Even if one candidate got 3 million more popular votes, all of those could have been from New York. In this sense it would still have not reflected the will of the people of the whole country. Sorry but popular vote electing a president won’t cut it. See the posts above about proportional representation — that’s a better alternative as it counts votes from all around the country, not just the popular vote. But it does it differently than the electoral college.
Whatever happened to “one person, one vote”? Whatever happened to, you know, democracy?
If we got rid of the electoral college, that wouldn’t be stifling “the will” of any rural voter. They could still vote.
What you’re asking for is that the vote of any particular rural voter have more of an effect on the election than that of any particular other from say, NYC. That ain’t what democracy looks like.
10 Likes
So? Why should a New Yorkers’ vote be weighted any less than the vote of a person in Ohio?
Non-white voters overwhelmingly opposed Trump, but we don’t give minority votes more weight to better reflect “the people of the whole country.”
7 Likes
huh? the person who gets the most votes should win, if we’re interested in what the people want. i don’t care if all of those 3 million votes did come from one state… how does that matter? what ever happened to governments “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed?” government of, by and for whichever party controls the most square miles is pretty much the opposite of that.
2 Likes
But urban voters all want welfare handouts! They’re not self-sufficient like you know, government-subsidized farmers. 
5 Likes
The term “landed gentry” comes to mind.
2 Likes
What a radical idea, jk. Go figure a guy who foolishly died in a duel because his gun jammed would come up it. Then all these years later, people would defend this morons creation.
Sure is telling how voices on the right, self-identifying as “conservatives” will argue for the virtues of non-individually-proportional representation systems like the electoral college. The notion that social/cultural/geographic regions warrant a degree of representation over and above that of individual humans that inhabit them is a twisted idea akin to concepts of blood-and-soil and corporations-are-people.
Regionalist/identarian positions are basically in the service of egregores, (not a historically conservative look, at least not of the “individualist” type).
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
