+1
Some decent arguments can be made against the Electoral College. But it's annoying to see a lot of people suggest no good ones can be made for it. It has obvious benefits, and it's clear that most of the people who don't like it have essentially forgotten (if they ever knew) just what "United States" was really supposed to mean.
The problem is that people think of the U.S. as just one place. But it's not just one place chopped up into arbitrary sections: it's supposed to be lots of little mini-countries with some umbrella policies over them. When you remember (or realize) that, it makes perfect sense that we have a mechanism that equalizes their standing somewhat and forces the President to appeal to a broad cross-section of them, rather than just campaigning in high-population areas and only catering to their concerns.
Think of it more like the United Nations: every country gets one vote, because the whole point is to create a place where everyone's concerns are, at least theoretically, given the same kind of hearing. Since American states are not quite as independent from one another as nation states, the Electoral College splits the difference by equalizing some, but still weighting for population. It's a pretty ingenuous compromise, really, but admittedly one that only makes sense if you remember the original point of the system and actually, you know, value Federalism rather than centralized power.
Closed Thread
(laughing at Trump)
