Karilyn wrote:Kaylakaze wrote:The electoral college itself is both stupid and corrupt in the first place since even though the electoral votes were close, Gore had millions more votes over all. All the electoral college does is say that if you live in a place that's contentious, your vote counts a lot more. If you live in a state that's primarily for your opposition, your vote doesn't count at all.
It's not corrupt when it is the rules of the game which you agreed to before playing. It could have just as easily been a Republican who had the popular vote, but not the electoral vote, who lost.
Also, in a system done by popular vote, if you live in a small state (or heck, possibly even if you didn't live in a big city), your vote wouldn't count at all. The electoral college mimics the congress in this regard. It's sort of how the Senate allows places with smaller populations to still have their interests spoken for. New York City has a population of 8,391,000. City, not state. This is a larger population than 38 of the 50 states. It doesn't take much imagination to see how smaller state's opinions and needs could be ignored in a popular vote system.
That being said, I do think that one very simple but positive change to the electoral college would be for a State's electors to be able to be split, where if a state had 10 electors, and one candidate got 60% of the popular vote within the state, then they would be given 6 electors, and their opponent would be given 40%. Though this is a bit more complicated, and would need the details hammered out. This would make sure that as you said, "if you live in a state that's primarily for your opposition," your vote would still count, because it could mean an extra elector for your candidate from your state.
No, if you lived in a small state, your vote would count just as much as anyone else's. It mimics Congress? Yes, it does, and Congress is broken and corrupt. Just because you may live in Bumfuck, Oklahoma, doesn't mean you should have more of a say than if you live in NYC, which is how the system is now. I understand the concept of "well the less populace states may not have their interests met" but that doesn't mean you screw those who live in populace regions by making their votes count less.
Frankly, our entire system of government is broken. Our Constitution was one of the first of its kind and as such, there are new ideas and concepts and methods that are better. It's the founding documentation version of Windows 1.0 and it's time for an upgrade.
Splitting electoral votes would be a step in the right direction, obviously. It's really the same thing but not as grandular.