The Electoral College scenario seems fundamentally undemocratic to me. I get the idea, but it seems like if such an idea should continue, it would be reviewed and updated each time. Is it not that there are states that hold big population and power now, where the idea was to give underrepresented states more representation? I may have that wrong, though.
As for getting people to want to vote, my personal opinion is that’s a downfall of two-parry democracies. It’s hard to be vote when the options are “shit” and “shitter”, so I imagine in a voluntary scenario, demotivation is a player for a decent enough percent of the population.
Is it not that there are states that hold big population and power now, where the idea was to give underrepresented states more representation?
That’s what Republicans will tell you, but they know they’ve only won the popular vote for President once in over 30 years and that their entire party’s life-line is dependent on it.
What you’re referring to was the Connecticut Compromise, or the Great Compromise — which was the establishment of the 2 branches of Congress, the US Senate and US House of Representatives. Ultimately, small states were promised 2 US Senators and 1 House Representative no matter their population — which largely addresses what you point out here. Nobody really has a problem with that.
What people have a problem with are these “elector” votes applying to the election of the President. Thus Whyoming gets 3 electoral votes, which is disproportionately greater than, say, California. If you do the math, a Wyoming American citizen has 4x the voting power as a Californian Citizen, which kind of undermines the whole, “one person one vote” mantra.
The reality is that the Electoral College and its application toward electing the President was a compromise born out of slavery. Southern states had >90% of all slaves and since slaves didn’t count toward population this weakened Southern states’ capacity to influence who the President was. The Electoral College offset this disadvantage for Southern states. It is thus antiquated and a complete failure. We desperately need a constitutional amendment, which will require a massive widespread viral campaign from coast-to-coast.
You’re absolutely right about the two-party democracy diminishing enthusiasm. First-Past-The-Post 2-party system must go. Any ranked alternative system would be a massive improvement.
The Electoral College scenario seems fundamentally undemocratic to me. I get the idea, but it seems like if such an idea should continue, it would be reviewed and updated each time. Is it not that there are states that hold big population and power now, where the idea was to give underrepresented states more representation? I may have that wrong, though.
As for getting people to want to vote, my personal opinion is that’s a downfall of two-parry democracies. It’s hard to be vote when the options are “shit” and “shitter”, so I imagine in a voluntary scenario, demotivation is a player for a decent enough percent of the population.
That’s what Republicans will tell you, but they know they’ve only won the popular vote for President once in over 30 years and that their entire party’s life-line is dependent on it.
What you’re referring to was the Connecticut Compromise, or the Great Compromise — which was the establishment of the 2 branches of Congress, the US Senate and US House of Representatives. Ultimately, small states were promised 2 US Senators and 1 House Representative no matter their population — which largely addresses what you point out here. Nobody really has a problem with that.
What people have a problem with are these “elector” votes applying to the election of the President. Thus Whyoming gets 3 electoral votes, which is disproportionately greater than, say, California. If you do the math, a Wyoming American citizen has 4x the voting power as a Californian Citizen, which kind of undermines the whole, “one person one vote” mantra.
The reality is that the Electoral College and its application toward electing the President was a compromise born out of slavery. Southern states had >90% of all slaves and since slaves didn’t count toward population this weakened Southern states’ capacity to influence who the President was. The Electoral College offset this disadvantage for Southern states. It is thus antiquated and a complete failure. We desperately need a constitutional amendment, which will require a massive widespread viral campaign from coast-to-coast.
You’re absolutely right about the two-party democracy diminishing enthusiasm. First-Past-The-Post 2-party system must go. Any ranked alternative system would be a massive improvement.