Quoted:
I'm far from liberal but I do not fully understand the importance of the Electoral College. I've had several people tell me that without it politicians would ignore less populated states. But with it, they ignore states they have little or no chance of winning. It seems to me that with a popular vote, or some compromise like you suggested, they would have to campaign in EVERY state.
I'm sure that there is something I'm missing about this.
|
In a popular vote system, 20% of the popular vote in California would be worth the same as 100% of the popular vote in Tennesse.
Politicians would find it much easier to campaign for a smaller percentage of a large state vote, than to try to capture 100% of the vote in a smaller state.
In an electoral system, "battleground" states can change from election to election.
With a popular vote, large sections of rural America would be permanently ignored, while urban areas would be competed for fiercely.
The likely result of this would be a massive increase in government programs benefiting major cities, while smaller states and rural areas get the shaft.