While the original purpose of the Electoral College — to ensure that Northern states could not get rid of slavery and perpetuate the subjugation of African Americans — has been rendered moot by the 13th, 14th, 15th and 24th Amendments, the primary argument in defense of it is that it prevents the largest states from dominating the smaller states.
But right now the smallest states — Wyoming, Montana, Vermont and Delaware — already have, in the present system, zero say in the outcome of presidential elections.
Just eight medium-sized states — a small number of “swing” states, the “battleground” states that get all the attention and are bombarded by all the ads — dominate all the other forty-two states, regardless of size, large or small.
And unlike in the eighteenth century when states were far more homogenous and distinct in their histories and cultures, today even the large states are not monolithic. There are conservative areas of California (far northern counties and inland and central valleys), New York (upstate and west) and Illinois (downstate) and there are liberal areas of Texas (Houston and Austin) or Florida (Miami-Dade) or even Mississippi and Alabama, in the “black belt” across the middle of those states.
People in urban areas of red states have more in common with those in urban areas of blue states, and those in rural areas of blue states have more in common with those in rural areas of red states. In an age of mass media and high-tech, high-speed communication and transportation, common interests are shared more by interest than by geography.
The original reasons for the Electoral College no longer exist, and the remaining arguments in its defense are no longer valid.
Let every vote count and every vote be counted and weighted equally (right now voters in Wyoming and Montana are weighted almost four times the weight of a California voter, though none of them actually have a say in the final outcome).
While the original purpose of the Electoral College — to ensure that Northern states could not get rid of slavery and perpetuate the subjugation of African Americans — has been rendered moot by the 13th, 14th, 15th and 24th Amendments, the primary argument in defense of it is that it prevents the largest states from dominating the smaller states.
But right now the smallest states — Wyoming, Montana, Vermont and Delaware — already have, in the present system, zero say in the outcome of presidential elections.
Just eight medium-sized states — a small number of “swing” states, the “battleground” states that get all the attention and are bombarded by all the ads — dominate all the other forty-two states, regardless of size, large or small.
And unlike in the eighteenth century when states were far more homogenous and distinct in their histories and cultures, today even the large states are not monolithic. There are conservative areas of California (far northern counties and inland and central valleys), New York (upstate and west) and Illinois (downstate) and there are liberal areas of Texas (Houston and Austin) or Florida (Miami-Dade) or even Mississippi and Alabama, in the “black belt” across the middle of those states.
People in urban areas of red states have more in common with those in urban areas of blue states, and those in rural areas of blue states have more in common with those in rural areas of red states. In an age of mass media and high-tech, high-speed communication and transportation, common interests are shared more by interest than by geography.
The original reasons for the Electoral College no longer exist, and the remaining arguments in its defense are no longer valid.
Let every vote count and every vote be counted and weighted equally (right now voters in Wyoming and Montana are weighted almost four times the weight of a California voter, though none of them actually have a say in the final outcome).