|
Electoral College vs. Popular Vote
As GeorgeW gets closer to winning the election, he's starting to make more
sense in his weblog:
...Given that states are effectively
"mini-countries", with laws that deviate slightly from the Federal norm and
constituencies that have similar interests relative to the rest of the nation,
it makes intuitive sense that the Presidential candidate with an effective majority
should get all the electoral votes for that state. That candidate is the
one that best represents that state.
Let's take the extreme example where the bastions of the
predominately liberal media, concentrated primarily in California and New England,
are able to coax 100% of the voters in California and New England to vote for
the Democratic candidate. Now, even if every other state in the Union were to
vote primarily Republican, the Democratic candidate would still win the popular
vote. All the states without shoreline would all of a sudden have no voice.
What is my point? I have three
points.
1) The liberal media is bad. They offer a skewed view of
public opinion. Their influence is concentrated in urban centers, which, in
a popular vote, gives too much control over the outcome of the election.
2) The example is not that
extreme. California was a sweep for the Democrats, in spite of the fact that
most of the population live outside San Francisco and Los Angeles. The liberal
media influence is strong.
3) The Electoral College system
is effective in balancing the needs of the states with the needs of the people.
A popular vote would not be.
|
