Quote:
Originally posted by Colin
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What makes it outdated?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.
|
Your statement that you don't find the population to be important somewhat scares me. Isn't the one main thing a nation exists for, and is ultimately subordinate to, its population? If not, dictatorship would be just as valid a form of government as democracy...
Now, as for what makes the EC outdated, I think the main thing is the "winner takes all" principle. In a rural society with states that had relatively low populations, the argument that a single vote could represent a state's overall position fairly well may have been somewhat valid. However, with states the size of California that simply isn't the case anymore.
Aside from that, the "winner takes all" principle adds a huge influence of random luck to the electoral process. As we've seen in 2000, a few hundred or a few thousand votes can determine the outcome. Those can literally be changed by a small breeze or a small amount of rain. This is also true if you use the popular vote or a proportionate distribution of electoral votes, but to a much lesser degree.
Now, as for the minimum representation, that is based on a society where the states had much smaller population differences and where mobility between states was much smaller.
However, these days there is no good reason anymore why someone from Wyoming should have 3 times as much to say about who becomes president as someone from California.