Personally, I think the Electoral College should be revised to where each state receives 10 electoral votes.
That way, NO PRESIDENT will be able to win the White House without having to win the majority of ALL states, no matter how lightly, or densely, populated. If a candidate wants to win, he'll have to win more than 1/2 of the states, not just a few select ones that possess the majority of the population.
Interesting, though it might be simpler if each state had 1 electoral vote. Or you could give each state 100 electoral votes so that more would have the opportunity to feel like big shots. And why stop there? Why not give an electoral vote to each county "no matter how lightly, or densely, populated", and insist that a candidate win the majority of counties.
Your kind of thinking is what resulted in the Civil War, Baird... You remember reading about that war, don't ya? The one where the more heavily populated and industrialized North alienated the less populated southern states to the point where they seceded and lead us into Amerca's more bloody war (even bloodier than WWII)..
I guess you must be referring to my view that slavery should be abolished. Your interpretations of history are fascinating. Since tens of millions more people died in World War II, I was intrigued by your notion that the American Civil War was "bloodier". And I suppose your view is that Germany and Japan were alienated by their neighbors to the point where they naturally had to invade them.
I would hope you'd rethink your premise. The United States is NOT a democracy. It is a Representative Republic.
Yes, but representative of what? Since you obviously have a mistrust of government of the people, by the people, and for the people, perhaps you should rethink your premise. Perhaps you could come up with a better electoral system by allocating one electoral vote to each company in the S&P 500. You could then have shareholders vote by proxy to determine how each company's vote would be cast. |
