It never made sense. It was literally created to make sure voters could be overruled in the event the ruling class (party insiders) disagreed with their choice. It was justified to stop “mob rule” also known as the will of we the people.
It did make sense, but I understand why it might not seem like it to “modern Americans”. In fact, it’s quite an interesting mental challenge of putting yourself in someone else’s shoes.
We have a similar issue today in the EU. Do we base it one “one country, one vote” or on “one person, one vote”? Both sides of the argument is valid. Why would small countries join if they give up complete independence to the giants? I imagine the situation was very similar when the US was formed.
I think the flaw in the US system is they failed to forsee that states (or rather, people) would see themselves as one country and not a collection of countries. There should have been a time limit on the discrepancy of voting power.
Sure, for a hundred years, a state is where your loyalty, your feeling of self, your center is at. But as time moves on, you are less an Ohioian and more of s USian. Similarly, I would hope, you are less of a German and more of an EUian.
Neither blocks seem to have taken this into consideration but it makes it none the less true. Future generations paying the price for previous. Yada yada…
Sure
The electoral college allows states with far less people to have the same amount of power as those with far denser populations
It made sense in the past but no longer, and instead at times goes against the majority will of the people a la Trump and many previous examples
I agree with you that it’s outdated and a terrible fit.
Until we effectively replace it in law, unfortunately, it’s literally not illegitimate.
It never made sense. It was literally created to make sure voters could be overruled in the event the ruling class (party insiders) disagreed with their choice. It was justified to stop “mob rule” also known as the will of we the people.
It did make sense, but I understand why it might not seem like it to “modern Americans”. In fact, it’s quite an interesting mental challenge of putting yourself in someone else’s shoes.
We have a similar issue today in the EU. Do we base it one “one country, one vote” or on “one person, one vote”? Both sides of the argument is valid. Why would small countries join if they give up complete independence to the giants? I imagine the situation was very similar when the US was formed.
I think the flaw in the US system is they failed to forsee that states (or rather, people) would see themselves as one country and not a collection of countries. There should have been a time limit on the discrepancy of voting power.
Sure, for a hundred years, a state is where your loyalty, your feeling of self, your center is at. But as time moves on, you are less an Ohioian and more of s USian. Similarly, I would hope, you are less of a German and more of an EUian.
Neither blocks seem to have taken this into consideration but it makes it none the less true. Future generations paying the price for previous. Yada yada…
No, it never made sense because it never accomplished its stated purpose. It only ever suppressed the will of the majority.
It served its purpose though. It created a union.
I think a big reason why turning Texas Blue is such a priority, once that happens the GOP will be glad to get rid of the electoral college.