Quote:
|
Originally Posted by punkworld
That's absolute nonsense, which is quite clear from the fact that Bush got more votes than Kerry, even though Kerry did better on the coasts and Bush did better in the center.
Without the electoral college, every vote would count equally, and since there are quite a few people living in the center of the US, any politician hoping to win the presidency would also have to pay attention to those states.
The main difference, however, would be that conservative voices on the coasts and progressive/liberal voices in the center would also be heard. One could argue that that would be a good thing.
|
Exactly. Do you think a republican in Mass or a Democrat in Wyoming feel his vote counts? Of course not. The electoral college makes some votes more important than others. N Dakota, S Dakota, Wyoming, Idaho, Alaska, Nebraska and Montana have a combined population 1/2 than that of Illinois combined but have the more electoral votes comdined. That's just not fair. And we all know who those 7 small states are voting for. They'd vote republican if Hilter was the nominee and Bin Laden was the VP candidate just because they had Rs next to their names.
Wyoming has 1 electoral vote per 167K citizens while California has 1 one electoral vote per every 655K citizens. So a vote in Wyoming is almost 4 times more valuable than a vote in California. Yeah what a fair system.
The fact is that since a dem knows he's not winning the 7 small states I mentioned and a reublican knows he will win NEITHER candiadte is going to put any time or money or visit any of those states. Now wasn't that the point of the electoral college in the first place? To make the small states feel important? How improtant are you if you are IGNORED?