 |
| Top left and clockwise: Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton and dBarack Obama |
Small states have disproportionate power. For example, Wyoming gets the same number of senators as does California, even though California has 66 times the population that Wyoming does.
And here's the thing, we can NEVER get rid of the Electoral College. That would take a constitutional amendment, which to be approved must get 2/3rds of votes in the House or Senate or by a constitutional convention called by 2/3rds of the states. But getting 2/3rds is impossible because the smaller states would never agree to either process because it would dilute their national power.
The Electoral College is a deep flaw in the Constitution and has given us some deeply flawed presidents.
It also means ones vote for president only counts if you live in a "swing state." If you live in a state where the outcome is essentially determined by the nature of the population--for example, Oregon is [very, very likely] going to vote for the Democratic candidate no matter what, so the Democratic candidate will get all that state's EC votes, so everyone in the state who votes for a Republican has a vote that doesn't count, nor really do those who vote for the Democrat because lots of others are so the EC result is already obvious. Accordingly, candidates focus all their campaigning attention on the few swing states, of which there are only about ten now.
It's all very frustrating. In my opinion, the Electoral College is a fundamental design flaw in the Constitution, as is the wording of the Second Amendment (on guns). And we'll never get rid of either.
5 comments:
It's not too different in Canada, where in 2021 the liberals got 160 seats but only 32.6% of the popular vote, relative to the conservatives who got only 119 seats but had 33.7% of the popular vote.
The New Democratic Party managed only 25 seats even though they had 17.8% of the popular vote.
It was the same story in 2019 - the liberals won the most seats and formed the government even though they didn't win the popular vote.
There are many in Canada who advocate for proportional representation, but no government that wins a victory under the current system has any incentive to change it.
There are also issues in Australia where it has been applied. It tends to give seats to very fringe and even extremist parties.
Thanks -- I need to learn more about the Canadian electoral system.
BTW, what do you think of Pierre Poilievre?
I'm a single issue voter. That issue is climate change. Economists agree that a revenue neutral carbon tax is the most economically sound way to address climate change.
A sound conservative policy would be to remove climate related regulation and red tape but remain committed to preserve the revenue neutral carbon tax. Poilievre is more likely to scrap the carbon tax and replace it with regulations and red tape.
I'm not keen on voting for Trudeau, but Poilievre may force my hand.
Poilievre strikes me as a slick and polished talker who uses that to cover for his insults and attacks. Am I off base?
I think you have him pegged :)
Post a Comment