|1 person marked this as a favorite.|
I was perplexed that the Electoral College system didn't get scrapped after Bush / Gore, and I remain confused by the desire to keep it around without some changes. As it stands if you're a republican in California or New York then your vote for president is simply irrelevant. Equally if you're a democrat in Arkansas or Wyoming. Why would this be a desirable thing?
The areas dominated by a certain party dilute the vote of the supporters too. Once you already know a state is going to go a certain way then more votes for either candidate mean nothing.
Surely every individual vote should have as much ability to affect the race as every other individual vote does. It feels like that should be a key feature of a democracy and it isn't like it's something that would be very difficult to change in practice either. Make it a straight popular vote or allocate the seats for each state in the proportion of the votes received. Then each candidate would need to care about everywhere and not focus on 'paths to victory' which ignore large chunks of the country.
Look, when the electoral college was formed I'm sure it was a practical solution for the country as it was then. But the world has moved on, it isn't insulting the past to suggest we have the ability to institute a more fair system now.