All you’re doing is making my point for me. Both Wyoming and California have a say in choosing the American president, but California has much more say than Wyoming because of the size of California’s population. Wyoming only gets 3 votes. California gets 55. In other words, California is worth more than 18 Wyomings when it comes election time. The larger states already have a huge influence on choosing the president. Moving towards a direct election would distort the less populated states’ influence even further. Kim:Let’s say for argument’s sake that you’re correct and a direct election of a president would make smaller states irrelevant. Reform of the Electoral College doesn’t necessarily mean abolishing it completely or having direct elections for president, even if that would be the preferred method so all Americans have an equal voice regardless their home state. America could have proportional representation. That would eliminate another huge problem of the Electoral College, which isthe winner-take-all system. That system not only, in practical application, disenfranchises some voters, but it actually suppresses voter turnout. Many voters stay home in states where it’s pretty much certain which candidate will win their state. How many people didn’t bother voting in Illinois in 2012 because there was no way President Obama would lose his home state? But with a proportional system,
there is still incentive to vote. For example, if Republicans win 40% of the popular vote in Illinois, they would get 40% of the electoral votes.Steve:Such a system would upend the current two-party system. If the Libertarian, Green, Socialist, Constitution, and other third political
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 4 pages?