The populous states are largely that way because they are coastal cities with major shipping ports, and further migration away from the cities is often an expensive burden, at least it was for a long time. Non of which grants these states an inherent right to becoming a bloc to supplant less populated states. The only way to compete with states that are more populous is to become equally populated, which is impractical, if not impossible, especially since the major industries of such states may not be comparable to those in the coastal states, which means less economic incentive to move to some of the smaller states. Why is diminishing the voice of smaller states so the densely populated coastal states can have their interest put above the more rural farm staes, et al, considered more ethical than the current system?
Why don't popular votes care about the logical negative consequences? Smaller states can't compete without the EC, can they?
2006-11-18 05:53:34 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
*Why don't popular vote supporters care about.....
2006-11-18 05:54:02 · update #1
The coasts are liberal (blue) states. They don't care about being fair they want power. Evidenced by recent, except this past, elections they can't win on a level field.
Supporters don't care about negative consequences, they too only want to win. Why, after recent elections all had lawsuits, did this past election not have any? Because the liberals won, so nobody cheated this time? I don't buy it!
2006-11-18 06:35:14 · answer #1 · answered by Bawney 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
That is precisely why the framers created the Senate. This is where the less populous states can have equal say with the more densely populated states. The framers specifically wanted a *balance* between popular vote (the House) and state votes (the Senate).
And as for the executive branch, if we can elect a Vice President from Wyoming, then obviously the less populous states are not totally powerless.
2006-11-18 08:57:41 · answer #2 · answered by c_sense_101 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
With due respect to the people who cite the fact the the framers of the US Constitution had a specific reason for the Electoral College, the framers were not always right.
We live in a democracy. With the electoral college you do not even cast a vote for any of the actual candidates. In fact most states don't even have laws preventing faithless electors, a faithless elector is a member of the electoral college who votes for someone other than who they pledged to.
2006-11-23 07:09:12 · answer #3 · answered by Paul W 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Maybe those who propose the popular vote fail to understand the history, the purpose, and the success of the American electoral college system over more than two centuries.
They need to read William C. Kimberling's May 1992 statement on the subject. See "The Electoral College PDF" on the Internet. As the Deputy Director of the FEC Office of Election Administration, he clearly explains the advantages of the electoral college system.
2006-11-18 09:13:02 · answer #4 · answered by senior citizen 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because this is America. And the power rests with the people.
Although Bush (a.k.a. "The Decider") believes the power rests with him. It is very fortunate that the people spoke these elections and allowed checks and balances and a balance of power to be reinstalled this January.
2006-11-18 07:12:22 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋