Quote:
Originally posted by Colin
Going back to the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers the great political debate in the US has been about federalism. Whether it is the right amount or not begs the fundamental question of what the United States actually is. The Constitution answers that question and the electoral system is the voting system that results. Is there any reason to change what the United States is and the relation between states, their population and the federal government? I don't think so myself.
You might ask "why not one person, one vote?" Another might ask "why not one state, one vote"? Of course, the electoral system is a compromise between those two schools of thought.
There are many mixed voting systems in the world. It's completely normal. Consider Canada's system where each district chooses an MP and then the party with the majority chooses the government and prime minister. No, I don't think just because other nations use a mixed voting system the US should but it's amusing that many of the
same people who complain about the US electoral system live in a country with a similar one.
|
What you fail to address is the problem that the EC works on a "winner takes all" basis for the individual states. Autonomy for the individual states most certainly does not hold that minority positions in states get no vote.
Aside from that, the fact that you value the individual states does not mean that you can't base their influence on their population. In fact, that is even being done right now, but with a completely useless added 2 EV's per state, plus a minimum of 1 EV.
Even if you look at it from your the "state" point of view, the current system makes no sense. It's an outdated system, that may have made sense a long time ago but simply isn't logical anymore these days.