New Hampshire's Virtual Town Hall
Undemocratic or a voice for the little guy?
We are all familiar with the notion of democracy, the people choose. So then why would electors of the Electoral College have the final say? If we live in a nation with democracy at its heart, then how is it possible for the popular voice of the people to be superseded by a group of 538 electors? This is the argument for those opposing our current Electoral College system.
However,
The United States of America is huge. Everyone wants to make sure that their voice is heard. For states with smaller populations this means that a purely democratic vote could significantly lesson their impact. The solution, the Electoral College. Every state has electors and they ensure each state has an influence on a national scale.
Now, the question is, should we ensure the voice of even the smallest states or strictly adhere to a popular democratic vote?
Views: 0
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Branley on -
What about a compromise? Instead of the current electoral college or a purely democratic vote, what about a more responsive Electoral College? At current, the Electoral College disenfranchises large portions of the population in states with high populations, such as Texas, California, and New York. For example, if Texas has a voting population of 60% Republicans, the 40% of the population that votes Democratic has essentially no vote for the president.
On the other hand a direct vote can limit the need of candidates to leave major cities and go to low population states such as New Hampshire, Vermont, Wyoming, and Montana.
My suggestion for a compromise, which is in place in Maine and Nebraska, is known as the Congressional District Method. In this system, the electoral college votes go to the candidates who have the most votes in each of the state's congressional districts, with two additional votes going to the winner of the state popular vote as a whole (for the states two senators). This system would likely not significantly effect New Hampshire, as NH would (barring a major third candidate) either give all four of its votes to one candidate, or three to one candidate and one to another candidate. The significance of this move would be hopefully to put more pressure on the big states to follow suit and perhaps gain momentum for a constitutional amendment. If the entire nation adopted this practice, it would create a situation where candidates would have incentive not only to go to every state, but also every congressional district. This would increase the power of more people to choose the president, without destroying the regional impact of the Electoral College. It would also make it so that every person’s vote would be more equal, as they would be voting as one vote towards their single electoral vote in their congressional district, rather than potentially being one vote out of the millions of people who vote in Texas or California. -
Follow us:
Presidential Election Navigator
Videos
Photos
Badge
© 2012 Created by LFDA Editor.
