Or adopt the viewpoint that the process and participation in the process has a value unrelated to being on the “winning” side.
That has nothing to do with what I was saying.
I think it has everything to do with what you’re saying. The compromise reached in the Constitution is about making sure states are represented. It’s not particularly interested in representing people. The compromise for state representation is 2 senators for each state, and a population-based number of representatives. Small states get slightly more representation than population alone would suggest, but big states still get more say overall.
Now, if you’re saying that state representation is arbitrary compared to city representation or religion or age… well, yes. I suppose it is arbitrary to extent that we could be the United Religions of America or the United Cities of America. But we do happen to be the United States of America and an electoral system that represents states seems like a natural system to use.
My point was simply that people in New York City cannot and should not make decisions for Cedar Rapids, Iowa, even though there are far more of them. Regional interests must be balanced.
So yeah, we amplify their voices a little, and quiet the New Yorkers a bit, to make things fair. Otherwise you end up with the Empire of New York and California instead of the US of A.
wasn’t the view held a few years ago that one of the reasons that the founding fathers even put the EC in place was to save the uneducated masses from “themselves” over a trump type of thing? although there was a difference in what passed for media and the like back then … ie you only knew what the occasional article or personal speech told you
Except that (a) that’s not at all how it works out in practice, and (b) the way you’re framing the argument basically rejects the entire premise of a democracy.
Note that the influence of people in electing the president (again, ignoring the fact that only swing states really matter) is not based on big town vs small town, or rural vs urban, or anything of that sort. It’s based on the population of their state. Each individual resident of Wyoming has vastly more influence in selecting the president than each individual resident of California.
As dracoi points out, that’s because the US is set up as a federation of states, with the states having decision-making-weight that is in some contexts not proportional to their population. Which is the way it is, and which is probably a historical necessity (because the original 13 colonies would never have joined together without it). But let’s not act like it’s “fair” or “just” in some sense.
In particular, look at some guy who lives in a tiny farming town in Wyoming. Now, you might argue, his interests are different than those big city folks in New York or LA. Why, it’s only fair that his voice is magnified a bit. Sounds good on the surface.
The trouble is, what about some guy who lives in a tiny farming town in the central valley of California. His interests probably are very similar to the guy in the tiny farming town in Montana. His interests are different form those big city folks in New York or LA. But, whoops, his tiny farming town is in California, so we do NOT magnify his voice a bit. Quite the opposite.
Or consider several suburbanites who lives outside New York city. One of them lives in New York State. Another lives in New Jersey. Another lives in Connecticut. They all have unequal voices in selecting the president, even though there’s no particular geographical reason why they would have different needs or opinions.
In other words, the system is unfair. And it’s not unfair in favor of “the little guy” in some careful checks-and-balances way. Rather, it’s unfair in favor of people who live in small-population states. Which means that if you pit California vs Texas-and-Wyoming-and-Alabama, you might have two sets of US citizens with the same total headcount, and the same urban-vs-rural distribution, the same number of big cities, the same number of small towns, etc, etc, but the latter group has FAR more influence on selecting the president.
And furthermore, and here’s the point I was really trying to make, EVERYONE is “the little guy”, depending on how you look at it. Farmers are only 5% of our population, we’d better give them special protection, ramp up their voice a bit, otherwise they’ll never be heard. But why farmers? We could pick any other way to divide the population into 95-vs-5, look at the side that is 5% of the population and decide that that 5% is the “little guys” who need their voices ramped up a bit?
The way we do it is along state lines. And there are very understandable historical reasons for that. But that doesn’t make it FAIR.
It’s fair depending upon point of view. Which is why I mentioned the relationship between state and union to begin with. There wasn’t much pretense about the US being a democracy in the beginning.
Take a moment to consider how Orwellian a statement that is.
I guess it would seem Orwellian to someone who thinks he is holder of the Truth of Fairness. Probably the same reason you’ve never had a satisfying response to your argument.
Hey, I’ve made an argument, with, like, words and reasoning and stuff. Someone can respond if they want. But if the entirety of their response is “well, it’s fair depending on your point of view”, I reserve the right to hold that up to ridicule.
You know “Orwellian”, one of those words you used, means something, right? That group of words you cobbled together implies that different points of view on fairness is some kind of doublespeak contradictory b.s.
“It’s fair depending on your point of view” is a totally meaningless statement that could be used to justify anything. That’s close enough to Orwellian to me. Now, if you want to criticize my position, why not criticize its substance rather than just making pedantic quibbles?
To expand on that a bit, if something is only fair “depending on your point of view” then it is, in a fundamental sense, NOT FAIR.
That’s kind of fundamental to the concept of fairness.
With no Electoral College we’d still be recounting the votes from 2000. A race that close nationally would have candidates looking to pick up votes everywhere. My ideal solution would be to keep the EC but do away with the “extra” two electors that each state gets. This would keep the best aspect of the system but reduce the odds of a 2000 scenario.
Ok. I think a system that gives weight to regional, i.e. State, concerns is not unreasonable. Given the popular vote usually follows the electoral college vote anyways, I can’t imagine why it would be worth all the legislative effort just to line up with some holy “all votes must be equal!” standard.
Except that was 2000 was not particularly close in the popular vote.
That said, sure, a truly close election in straight national popular vote would be a recounting nightmare. That is a legitimate and reasonable argument against popular vote.
Look, I did not start this thread, nor am I particularly evangelizing for national popular vote. First of all, I kind of doubt we can get there from here. And there are legitimate issues with it, such as the one E-DUB pointed out. I entered this thread in response to this comment:
Which I think is preposterous, flat out wrong, and which also contains two insidious hidden implications:
(1) The people in the flyover states are the “real Americans”
(2) Everyone in LA and everyone in New York vote in lockstep
Basically, I think that DrCube is trying to take a “feature” of the EC which is there due to accidents of history and geography (granted, extremely important accidents of history which were fundamental to the formation of our nation) and promote it as being good and fair in and of itself. If it seems good and fair to the guy in small town Wyoming, does it not also seem good and fair to the guy in small town central valley California? And if not, how can it possibly actually be good and fair?
(But now I’m just repeating myself.)
There are a lot of things that “aren’t fair” that we accept, because the alternatives would be worse.
We accept the absurd and arbitrary cut-off of people getting to vote at 18 years old. There are thousands of sixteen year olds who are vastly better able to make a voting decision than other thousands of twenty year olds. We let totally dumb-shit 20-ers vote, but deny the vote to brilliant and educated 16ers. Completely unfair…but pretty much necessary.
Same with the EC. Okay, it isn’t “fair,” but without it, we wouldn’t have our constitution at all right now, but some other form of government entirely. The compromise was necessary. It’s like the odious 3/5 rule and the rule that said slavery couldn’t even be addressed by amendment. There was no possibility of national unity without 'em.
I agree with the others here, that it is well that we give Wyoming an artificial advantage, rather than reduce them to absolute inconsequence. The ability to saturate major media markets already gives the big cities an unfair advantage.
I don’t agree that, without the electoral balance, NY and LA would dominate. It would actually be the top dozen media markets. Which is to say, the point was completely valid. Big cities would become the de facto “electoral districts.” This would shift the Presidential race significantly in the “blue” direction.
There are even a few blues who don’t want to see that happen. We just have to put up with one kind of unfairness, because we’re opposed to another kind.
Just a side question: would it have been less odious as a 0/5 rule or 5/5?
You ever hear “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”? It’s Orwellian in exactly that sense. And guess who wrote that…
0/5, which is essentially what it was amended to be. (Although the provision has never been enforced, the 14th Amendment says that disenfranchised groups don’t count at all for the purposes of apportionment.)