The Electoral College is a deeply debated aspect of U.S. presidential elections. Is it an outdated system that unfairly benefits small states, or does it still provide balance in elections?
The Electoral College is a deeply debated aspect of U.S. presidential elections. Is it an outdated system that unfairly benefits small states, or does it still provide balance in elections?
This is not an argument in favor of it. It’s a flaw. Low population states should not have more of a say per voter than high population states just because they are rural. That makes no sense whatsoever. Land doesn’t vote. People do. It doesn’t matter if a voter is in a rural area or a city. Every vote should count equally.
As it stood for the 2016 election, Wyoming got three electoral votes for its ~586,107 voters while California got 55 votes for its ~39,144,818 voters. That’s 1 vote per 195,369 voters in Wyoming versus 1 voter per 711,724 voters in California. It is nonsensical that a vote in Wyoming carries 3.6 times the weight of a Californian’s vote.
In fact, the main reason for the Electoral College was slavery. It’s another holdover from a past that should have been long ago discarded.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/electoral-college-racist-origins/601918/ (or https://archive.is/YnSkW )