Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
My logic is not flawed. This isn't something I just made up. It's a widely understood challenge with electoral college reform. Their vote might technically "count" as much as anyone else's, but it wouldn't matter, because who wins the Presidency is decided by others elsewhere, and it's those peoples' issues that will be catered to. It's the same as the current situation, except instead of catering to the issues that matter only in the battleground states, the candidates would be catering to the issues that matter only in large urban areas. Which, in turn, means the rural areas are completely shut out in terms of policy priorities, which further incentivizes people to move to big cities, which only increases the rate of population concentration in urban areas.
|
Rural citizens would still have their issues represented in government by their House representatives who are elected specifically to voice the concerns of their local constituents in Congress. For a truly national office like President, all votes should count equally regardless of where the voters live. You'd be crying bloody murder if anyone ever seriously proposed an election reform law that gave other minority groups, for example LGBT people or the highly-educated who possess graduate/post-graduate degrees, identical disproportionate voting power that voters in small rural states currently have in presidential elections due to the EC.
And you'd be absolutely right to criticize that proposal. Yet for some completely illogical reason, you think ignoring the principle of one person/one vote is perfectly reasonable because a comparatively small percentage of the population should have their pet concerns catered to solely based on the size of the community in which they live? Please. That's blatantly anti-democratic.