Is it time for a back to the future idea?
-
The Electoral College works well on the Federal Level. The Framers recognized that in order to keep the urban areas from dominating any election and creating some form of input for the rural areas, the Electoral College was the answer.
Why can't a state electoral college work? Take New York as an example...Win NYC and you've pretty much wrapped up the election. Let's divide New York into electoral districts and institute an electoral college. It probably won't massively effect election outcomes, but it would negate a portion of the popular vote, mandating that candidates for state-wide office campaign heavily across the entire state.
Or sub any major city (Chicago, Los Angeles, etc.) for NYC.
Would it work?
-
I’m no expert in American history, but my understanding is that Hamilton and Madison didn’t want the Senate - but it was demanded by smaller states.
The logic was might as well have a subpar institution than fewer participating states.
Madison didn’t like the Electoral College for similar reasons.
Thinking of myself - I’ve lived in multiple states. It seems a bit odd to me that my power to elect the chief representative varies by which state I live in (not that I can vote)
-
DON’T let them eat cake.
- RFK Jr -
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
@Jolly said in Is it time for a back to the future idea?:
@jon-nyc said in Is it time for a back to the future idea?:
Would it work?
Depends on who gets to define ‘work’.
Would you support a system that gave upstate New York a bit more power in the election of statewide officials?
No, I’m an individual rights guy. I don’t like the idea of trying to equalize group outcomes at the expense of treating people the same. It doesn’t matter to me if you define the groups by geography or ethnicity. It’s conceptually the same.
