Why does Iowa, Utah, and Maine care about voter turnout? Small states will never give up on the EC, it gives them greater representations. And the EC always benefits one political party over the other. Right now, red states and Republicans have no reason to agree to this. A popular election benefits New York and California. Because campaigns would shift their focus to those states. Just think of how much the small states would hear it from local business. Do you think Iowa hotels and local business want to give up on all the attention they get every 4 years?
I'm pretty sure a crux of the argument here is definitely about voter disenfranchisement. A valid question is whether you feel your vote truly counts now under the current system, or whether it would hold more power under a popular vote. As someone who has voted for a Democratic candidate in the past, in a traditionally Red state, I have felt at times my vote does not count. And I seriously do not understand how, in this age, someone could argue against not using the popular vote. If candidate A receives more votes than candidate B, candidate A should win right? With how diverse and spread out the country is now, I hardly think elections would be decided by the large coastal cities and urban areas alone. Besides, even if that were to happen, you still have elected representatives from every corner of the country...there are plenty of checks and balances in place to prevent mob rule. If you were to move to a popular vote, every single state and region wouldl matter. Those states with only a few million people...those few million votes could theoretically mean the difference in an election. At the very least, those states certainly wouldn't be any less irrelevant than they are now. And part of me seems to recall that part of the founders intent with the electoral college system was to prevent the misinformed, unintelligent average joe citizen from affecting an election. Truly there are plenty of idiots out there, but they should have a voice just like everyone else.
Of course they wouldn't, which again begs the question...under the current system does every vote truly count? Seems a popular vote would not only be a fairer system, but a bipartisan one as well. Shouldn't be about how much power a given state holds, it's certainly not about Republican and Democrats. It's about every voice being heard, about fair and balanced elections... ....guess I'm just thinking too idealistically.
But we are not a democracy, we're a republic of many states. That was the trade off to forming the U.S.A. One can say that states are no longer relevant in some sense - perhaps at the federal level. But the U.S. was crafted like this in order to get smaller states to buy into joining the union. They have the right to say no. We all have a choice to live where we want. Does your vote count less in NY then ND? yes. Are you less represented in congress and the senate. Yes. But that was the price to pay. America exists because the founders decided to give Rural areas more power as a compromise. Today, we still see how that inbalance plays out. And there is no way to change it since the small states have the ability to block an Amendment as well.
