Quote:
Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute
Simple. It's to give each state a say in the election. Without the electoral college, the states with huge populations (like California, NY, etc.) could force their will on the smaller states (like Utah, WY, etc.)
The candidates are running to represent all the citizens from each state and therefore, are running in 50 separate elections.
It really is the best way to do it.
And your vote really does count in the state in which you cast it. Yours could be the one that makes the difference in the candidate of your choice winning the state in which you live.
|
I do think there is some merit for larger states in population to have the electoral votes awarded based on how each Congressional District votes, not the entire state vote. I doubt the Founding Fathers ever dreamed there would be a state as big as California.
The arguments to keep some form of the electoral college are very sound though. The smaller states, and rural communities need to have a voice. If it were a straight popular vote a candidate could simply pander to NYC, Chicago, LA, SF Bay Area, Houston, and the other biggest cities, and win the Presidency.