I’m actually helping someone write a paper along these lines, so I’m genuinely interested in the perspective of people who would disagree with a direct count or ranked choice or whatever. I am interested in what a real human being defending the current system would say.
The electoral college helps protect people who live in America, but not in the most populous areas. Under mob rule, politicians can support policies specifically targeted to helping affluent/dense populations in cities, and also support policies which further marginalize the remaining 90% of the country. Can you name another mechanism which would achieve that goal of protecting a broader interest better?
This is the correct answer to OPs question. What’s the real, human, and arguably logical defense of a system that ignores the popular vote in a “democracy”.
The idea is that you have to weight the system to ensure leaders have to pay attention to everyone, not just focus on winning NYC and LA and maybe a couple other big cities, completely ignoring anyone who lives outside a densely populated area.
Source: raised by a conservative who believes this very thing. Not saying I agree personally but I definitely grew up hearing this idea.
The Senate takes care of that, giving low population states much more representation, even while those welfare states suck the teat of the more populous states. The House, hence the electoral, is supposed to represent the people. Yet, once again, due to bullshit politicians flipping double birds at The Constitution, the number of reps was frozen nearly a century ago, seemingly enshrining very unequal representation.
While that’s true for the legislative branch, the executive is different, or at least it’s supposed to be. The point is to get the president to represent all Americans, not just those in cities. I’m not agreeing with the idea, I’m just trying to answer so OP can get some insight into the argument.
Personally I think the EC was a bad idea but so was the 17th amendment. Of course, without the 17th amendment there would never be a dem majority in the Senate so you win some you lose some I guess.
Ochlocracy is not Democracy.
IMO, it’s a Red Herring, pushed by corrupt DNC operatives that seek to misdirect voter rage in order to perpetuate the closed two party system that enriches them.
The real culprit is #FPTP.
Honestly, I’d suggest that you convince your friend to stop misdirecting their energy toward something that won’t solve the two party issue for their paper and instead writing their paper with a focus on:
- eliminating FPTP
- Switching to ranked-choice voting
- Dismantling the DNC and GOP and forcing parties to adhere to election laws EVEN IN THEIR PRIMARIES.
This electoral college outrage feels like it comes from the same people that hang their hat on empty corporatist identity politics…and that should tell you everything you need to know. If Nancy Pelosi supports something, you know it’s corrupt.
This system is simply outdated. In a world where every single vote can easily be counted to determine the majority, no one needs to ride horseback to Washington to announce the result of the election in a given state. This is elitist and greatly favors states with small populations.
In a democracy, what should be important is what the voters want, not how to manipulate an outdated system.
Well yeah, that’s obvious. But I’m really trying to figure out what the opposing view point is.
Unfortunately, I can’t help with that.
The only “argument” I can think of is the fact that this system can be manipulated in such a way that the rich and powerful can push their candidates past the will of the people.
Above all because the Electoral College basically guarantees that there can only be two major parties.
I think that’s the simple reason why it hasn’t been abolished long ago.
deleted by creator
You wont die a virgin since your country will fuck you every 4 years
