LogFAQs > #931679531

Antifar posted...

They don't now!

This is an argument for abolishing the Senate; 50 percent of the people should not hold 18 percent of the power.

The electoral college enables candidates to win with an even smaller share of the population.

You mean the thing the EC gave us three years ago?

1. They definitely do. California alone has 39mil to N.Dakota's 760k. But I suppose you could argue that campaigning in California is counter-productive since the state will remain solidly blue and continue voting D unless there is a sudden surge in Red voters entering the state.

2. This would be an incorrect if I was arguing against the Senate, since each state can vote in 2 representatives every six years, however there is another problem created by letting major cities run most of the county, since the biggest city's votes will always outweigh the fringe cities and towns. So each state is somewhat represented during the process of creating new laws.

3. The electoral college gives states electoral votes based on how many house members they have, plus two for your Senators. They trust states to elect representatives that would look out for their interest best, so that each state is fairly represented in the election process. However, this system still has its own issues, such as the denser states controlling the most votes (which would also be a problem in a popular vote system). Having a popular vote system would effectively creates the same problem, but only on a much larger scale.

4. One Republican winning doesn't for tell ages of Red ruling. Democratic candidates are still in control of different positions of the government, and they have still remained as popular as ever with their core base. Just like Republicans during the Obama administration.

---

Hammer main - Drow, Rogue - Gaige - Nyx.