>>>>>>>> You are from AR, right? You have 6 electoral votes, so your per capita influence is actually diluted by the smaller states that get a minimum of 3.
I'm okay with that; so, too, are NY and CA. It isn't perfect. But it at least gives us SOME influence in the election, which we otherwise wouldn't have. That said, one can easily argue both sides of the issue.
The notion that congregations of like-minded people in an area (such as gays in San Franscisco, or extreme liberals in Boston) giving them undue influence really bothers me. One man, one vote is fine -- but Hamilton clearly foresaw the problem of massive assemblages of influence around the port cities.
Back in '91, when this kind of posting occurred not on the Internet, but on the Prodigy boards, I had extended debate with individuals about this subject and I was on the same side you're on. In fact, I thought at the time you could eliminate Congress and the EC altogether if you had a really good computer network and people were willing to vote. I suggested a scenario where anyone could propose legislation and see if it gets popular support, if it did more and more people could vote on it.
At the time, I just didn't realize how important it is to have some kind of buffer to prevent outcomes that are popular, yet harmful to the country.
I agree -- it isn't changing, so tons of threads on it hardly matter. |
