Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275
A good place to start would be, say, actually giving some sort of supporting arguments based on logic that refutes my points, instead of an outright dismissal that also claims I'm apparently unable to see reality.
Unless you're just looking to pick a fight.
|
Your argument is that the EC protects smaller states from bigger ones.
But that's not one person, one vote. And it does not protect small states that are safe states, or make large states less powerful. All it does is to empower swing states, which is not related to population size and is in no way related to spreading electoral attention.
If the goal of EC is to spread political influence across the country, it failed. Because the math made it clear that swing state votes are worth 20 times more than safe state votes.
If you really want to have truly fair representation nation wide, then popular vote is still the best way. Sure, smaller states would have less votes, but they would also be cheaper to influence. Promising a million dollars to Alaska would help the people there more than promising a million dollars to Texas, as Alaskans get a larger share of the money per person.
Quote:
|
A Vallen post without hyperbole? That's hard to imagine...
|
Ah, I do wonder why you randomly post things that literally made no sense too. So I guess we are even.