The electoral college is a unique and interesting attempt to ensure all states are considered important. I like it. Democrats used to like it. The party not benefiting from its purpose usually criticizes its usefulness.
I did read your EC post when it was new, but decided not to comment. For several reasons, I am pleased I am not American, but the EC is probably #1. I notice that any presentation arguing for a continuation of the system conveniently leaves out the southern states compromise.
It seems to me that the big/small or urban/rural arguments have little logic. Elections in democracies are intended to give individuals a voice in electing their leaders. If a majority is not gained on the first vote, a second could follow. That methodology works perfectly fine in numerous countries.
The Electoral College makes all presidential voting state focused. What any individual thinks is unimportant to the nation. The only concern is the state outcome.
Even campaigning is only done when and where there is hope of winning a state.
Democracies around the world have leadership elections where every person's choice counts as one vote, exactly the same as every other person's choice. Not so, south of the border.
The electoral college is a unique and interesting attempt to ensure all states are considered important. I like it. Democrats used to like it. The party not benefiting from its purpose usually criticizes its usefulness.
The EC was an evil compromise given to southern states.
Slaves counted as 3/5 of a person. When those 3/5s were included in the population, southern states gained greater power in presidential elections.
Dems liked the system when they were the racist party of the south. As times change, parties change sides of controversial issues.
https://niagaraindependent.ca/what-is-the-fuss-about-the-electoral-college/
I did read your EC post when it was new, but decided not to comment. For several reasons, I am pleased I am not American, but the EC is probably #1. I notice that any presentation arguing for a continuation of the system conveniently leaves out the southern states compromise.
It seems to me that the big/small or urban/rural arguments have little logic. Elections in democracies are intended to give individuals a voice in electing their leaders. If a majority is not gained on the first vote, a second could follow. That methodology works perfectly fine in numerous countries.
The Electoral College makes all presidential voting state focused. What any individual thinks is unimportant to the nation. The only concern is the state outcome.
Even campaigning is only done when and where there is hope of winning a state.
Democracies around the world have leadership elections where every person's choice counts as one vote, exactly the same as every other person's choice. Not so, south of the border.