LogFAQs > #889380007

wah_wah_wah posted...

What I really find baffling in arguments defending the electoral college is how they often present it as some sort of fair system that defends the little guy against the mob. Because there is no reality at all to that argument. There is only rhetoric. The electoral college has been in practice since a little after the founding. We have dozens of elections to look at the data to verify this claim. And again, no evidence defends smaller states at all against the bigger states. Or the rural people against the city slickers. It only arbitrarily gives certain people more of a vote than others, which has arbitrary effects on our entire system of government, some of which diminish its representive quality and when done on a winner-take-all basis, removes citizens votes entirely. If you're among the 39% loyal reds in California that voted for Trump... sorry you get absolutely nothing for that. ALL the electors were chosen for Clinton. That's not representative.

I'm not really on the side of "the electoral college needs to go"... but at the very least the methods used to select electors need to be constitutional. And they aren't. At all. Winner-take-all clearly violates equal protection.

It's because the electoral college generally favors land area over population.

Look at the general bull shit republicans give for liking it, "It keeps new york and california from deciding everything!" aside from how much nonsense that is they are basically saying "it diminishes the vote of these two states I don't like".

What is really funny and sad is when they try to claim the system was set up for said purpose by the founding fathers, instead of a response to when states used to have some people count as 3/5 of a person and their general dislike of "non-landing owning people".