How do you not see the argument...why should the entire executive branch be represented by those in NY and LA?
It shouldn't. And it isn't. And repeating the same lame meme that can't be logically backed up doesn't make it somehow take on logical qualities.
Case closed.
Why bother campaigning in the mid-west let alone the more rural counties of the entire country?
Indeed. That's a major part of the argument against WTA. Hillary Clinton need not campaign in Utah or Texas, because their states' EVs are already decided before anybody goes to the polls. Rump need not campaign there either, for the exact same reason. Same for New York. And Idaho. And Massachusetts. And Kansas. And we can do this all day.
The reasons for instituting the EC were clear and just, we were never intended to be a strict democracy, which is just tyranny by another name.
See above about repeating mindless meme that can't be justified, so many times that you delude yourself into stating that the emperor
really is wearing clothes, yeah that's the ticket.
Yep, the reasons for instituting the EC were clear. Part of it was that the technological miliieu of the 18th century made it unlikely that a voter in Georgia would have any contact or knowledge of a candy in New Hamster (or vice versa). Another part of it was to artificially inflate
Slave Power, which doesn't mean what it appears to mean according to standard English syntax.
And part of it was to allow clearer heads to prevail -- and
overrule -- when a con artist flimflamed the populace into voting for him. This part has by now had its balls cut off by the Duopoly and only a few conscientious electors who cast votes for Kasich and Sanders and Spotted Eagle and Powell, remain to carry out that duty. The rest have been cowed into subservience by blatantly unConstitutional state laws that make it illegal for them to carry out that duty.
But what it was never intended to do was to divisively degenerate the election process into a matter of one state voting against another state, and utterly ignoring the wishes of its minority vote. That's why the ECs main architect James Madison called for a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting WTA once it snowballed itself into the lockstep bullshit it's become today, and was already becoming then.
Its purpose was also not to keep out any possible encroachment by any possible third party and thereby allow a Duopoly of collusion between two party with names that are different and little else. But that's exactly what it does. Always instructive to see who's happy with that condition.
The EC still gives weight to the more heavily populated areas, but it also gives a better balance of proportionality. You have to campaign to the entire population, not just to the cities.
You don't have to campaign
at all if the state is "red" or "blue" --- as just noted above. It's already decided, don't waste your time. And in Alaska and Hawaìi, the two Duopoly party have already pre-apportioned them. Nobody from either side of the Duopoly goes there ever. Those decks are already stacked.
Such a deal huh?
As for proportionate weight to population, that's kind of what majority rule means. Get more votes, your vote prevails. A child can understand that.
Ever heard of "one man, one vote"?
On the other hand ever heard of "one acre, one vote"?
Didn't think so.
The rest of the above was redundant and way TL;DR. Here's your homework assignment: look up the concept of "paragraph breaks".
The bottom line here is that the EC as it's practiced today has multiple deleterious effects:
(a) it shuts out most of the country from contact with candidates;
(b) it keeps voter turnout abysmally and embarrassingly low, because for an individual voter, what's the point?;
(c) it preserves, protects and perpetuates the hegemony of the Duopoly by shutting out any voice outside that Duopoly (how many EVs did Ross Perot get again?);
(d) it divides the country into bogus "red" and "blue" regions, a concept that wouldn't even EXIST if the WTA-EC didn't create it;
and (e) it makes us all dependent on polls to determine which states are "in play" (see bogus concept directly above), because no election is decided by "urban" or "rural" --- it's decided by "swing states" -- and there's that same bogus concept yet again.
But hey, at least we eliminated (f) where it handed overproportionate power to slave-holding states who had no say in it, which is why four of our first five Presidents were slaveholders from the South. That's progress of a sort. The problem is, that's the only deleterious effect we've eliminated in the last 152 years.
