Quote:
Originally posted by punkworld
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 It's an outdated system, that may have made sense a long time ago but simply isn't logical anymore these days.
|
Now wait a minute. I didn't say I value the individual states more than the population, PW. Truth is, I don't find either to be important. As such, I think a mixed system is just fine.
The 2 EVs are not just added to each state for no reason at all. It was decided that each state needed to have minimum representation and that representation was set as equal to the number of senators for each state. It is not "useless". There is a reason behind it and that is so small states would not be completely subsidiary to the interests of larger states. i.e. Rhode Island vs. Virginia in the language of the day. Now you could argue, "why not 1 or 3 or 4?". That, however, is like arguing whether the drinking age should be 19, 20, or 21. The problem was defined and the number was set at something that people could agree on.
The current system is a result of a compromise at the constitutional convention between those who thought states should decide the president and those who thought people should.
It is neither one nor the other.
What makes it outdated? What has changed? There are such systems all over the world. Canada and the UK, for example. The US is still the
United States of America. The constitution defines what that means.