BigCliff wrote:Da Ax wrote:As quaint or flawed as some may think it is, it was designed so that everyone's voice was to be heard. Not just populations centers.
Problem is: any system that doesn't base the election on the popular vote is inherently stating that some people's opinions are more valuable than others.
If a "population center" holds more sway in determining an election's result, so what? Do we want a system where a larger proportion of dirt voting a given way is more important than how the total proportion of humans vote?
Why/how is that justified?
So you are OK with those living in population centers making decisions for the rest of the population? I'm not advocating this one way or the other...but values to people or populations change with geographic location. People in NY city have vastly different sets of values than I do. I'm not sure I want them speaking for me. The electoral is designed to support the popular vote in their particular location. This was done. Had someone went against what the popular vote in their location, I'd have an issue with this. (Like a few in Trump's camp that said they would do that.) There has to be a balance between the popular vote and how that is viewed in the country as a whole.
To be clear, had Hillary won, I'd be saying the same thing. I'm not politically motivated, at least no passionately enough to protest or even to make my position known. Some would take this to mean that I don't care...and that wouldn't be completely correct...or completely wrong. I did my part, but I stop short of convincing someone else to see my views. I'm speaking of me, no one else. In this day and age, you cannot help but be aware if you are even marginally paying attention. Trying to convince me will only result in me digging in...I'll make my own decision. I won't be cast as a villain because of who/what I voted for.
$.02 deposited.
- By ScottP
- By fishskibum
- By Transylwader
- By Average Joe