Quote:
Originally Posted by nittanyalum
No, I disagree. The electoral college does have more of a "leveling the playing field" than that. If your premise were true, the Democrats would have won the last two elections because they carried the coasts, where the largest cities with the most dense populations are. But since they only have a certain number of delegates, only winning those big cities and thus those states was not enough to carry the election. The candidate needs to win enough of the states with smaller, but significant, delegate counts to carry the election. If the electoral college goes away, candidates would only need to focus on (and care about) winning the most dense areas votes-wise, excluding everyone else from having a voice. It's really quite a brilliant system. Frustrating at times, sure, but brilliant nonetheless.
|
Where a candidate focuses on is up to them. At the end of the day, the candidate who wins the popular vote has more people voting for him or her. I don't see the big deal about the "state" having a say. States' rights were a much bigger deal 230 and 140 years ago. If the state allots 100% of its delegates to a candidate that won 51%/49%, they're not representing the people. If a candidate wins the states he/she wins by narrow margins and loses big where he/she loses, he/she doesn't deserve to win the election unless he/she wins the popular vote.
If two candidates only focus on voters in large, urban areas, they're missing out on potential votes from rural areas, and there are a lot of them.