Outer Acharet wrote:Why would a state need an electoral college? The reason America has it in the first place is so less-populous states get represented to ensure that politicians spread out their campaigning and don't entirely cater to the states with large enough populations to beat out the smaller ones,
Y'know, I don't think that was the reason. Or else the Founders were thick as mud and couldn't see that some states would vote so heavily one way that there wouldn't be much point in candidates campaigning there (particularly considering no airplanes). And therefore, most campaigning would happen in swing states large or small.
I think it was more a move of decentralization. States would run and oversee their part of the presidential election, then send trusted people (delegates) to represent the people of their state. It would be a decently alright system if the Founders had just considered that states having control over how their people were represented could be abused to give all delegates (Electors) to whoever won the popular vote in their state. Just on sentence including "proportional" would have solved that, and candidates would have no less incentive to campaign in deep red or blue states as in swing states ("winning" as state would make no difference).
And then the much milder advantage given to small states (guarantee of at least 3 Electors etc) would actually emerge from behind the strong pattern of swing states getting the most attention. As is it, most small states are deeply one way or the other, and any benefit they get from extra representation in the College is wiped out by less attention from candidates.
which matters on the large scale because the issues that cater to high-population states are completely different from the ones that cater to rural states, and states have large enough populations either way that a significant number of people aren't represented without the EC.
The issues that "cater" to the majority of people get the most political attention. Well gee wiz buddy, not much you can do about that except call your state congress-critter. Distorting the representation of your rural areas at the federal level is no solution: the majority will see you coming, correctly identify you as an enemy of democracy, and slap a poll tax on you. Probably ban postal voting too.
If rural people want their issues heard at the Federal level, they'll have to do what any other minority does. Seek allies with a cause in common, form a coalition with them, then swallow hard when it's time to vote for something you really don't want ... to serve that coalition and get the thing that they do want.
There is another option though. You could unionize.
It makes no sense unless you think that your state has cities taking up too much of the representation. And in Texas... the cities all go blue and almost the rest of the state goes red... and it's still about a fifty/fifty split...
That doesn't mean equal numbers. Just that the rural areas are VERY red.
Yeah, I can see why that might rustle a Republican's jimmies, especially now that the sitting POTUS has quite literally insinuated it's OK to tamper with the election system (mail-in voting is corrupt unless it agrees with me) to stack the books in their favor. That sets an ugly precedent.
It sure does. It's time to overhaul the whole Federal voting system. I'd give the Federal Electoral Commission sweeping powers to audit and if necessary replace local officials. But that's probably not possible, so the next best thing would be for State governments to take over.