I agree completely. While Tuff points out the "worry" about fraud happening in the cities on a much grander scale (and I have no idea why this would be the case... rural and lesser populated areas have just as much temptation to inflate their voting numbers to increase the funding they receive, or their voice in government), I think cries of fraud possibility are dwarfed by how many people DON'T vote because they feel their vote does not count. And Tuff, I would think you would grasp this point more than anyone else here, being a Republican identifying as Independent but residing in an overwhelmingly Democratic state. Your vote DOESN'T count except on local initiatives or your district's representation or state ballots.
You traditionally see quite low turnout numbers for American elections. And I think part of that is because so many people feel, rightly, that their vote doesn't count for anything. If it fails to turn the entire tide of their whole state, then it is worthless because the state's whole electoral count goes to the winner. So this actually PENALIZES PEOPLE IN LARGE STATES especially if they do not belong to the majority party in their state! Take California, as an example. There are probably MORE REPUBLICANS in California than in the whole state of Idaho, or Montana, states which traditionally vote Republican. But because California is predominantly Democratic, those however many million Republican votes count for absolutely nothing.
I don't really see why this is defended as a great thing, least of all by people who are in the minority political affiliation of their given state. And Tuff yes I know the electoral system is part of the Constitution and I am not proposing we use coupon scissors to cut out any part we don't like without going through the formal process of amendment. We're just expressing viewpoints on whether or not we feel this is a good thing, which serves the practice of democracy in the U.S.
I will go out on the partisan limb for a moment, and venture the theory that the reason the electoral system is defended by people who do not seem to benefit from it whatsoever in a direct sense, is because it keeps a neocon brand of conservativism viable. It is a philosophy which benefits so little of the population, and serves the interest of such an elite few, that in a pure popular vote on the issues themselves I believe it would be hopeless to run a neocon campaign. That is why factcheckers frequently find more misdirection and misleading in Republican campaigns (though this is, like any other criticism of Republican tactics, dismissed as media bias). And why Republican campaigns so frequently degenerate into complete irrelevance in terms of the issues, focusing on character assasination or mudslinging campaigns and negative attack ads. These are all strategies that help to keep an ideology which only serves the interest of a small minority of the population viable.
Bookmarks