Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dingfod
If the 10 most populous states did this, the electoral college victory would be a lot more likely to go for the candidate that won the national popular vote. It's actually just an end-around of doing away with electoral college going the other way without changing the Constitution. What is wrong with that? Why should one state get more say than another in a national election? I'm all for "one man [or woman], one vote".
|
As am I: Every person currently gets one vote in their State.
I refer you back to the name of the nation: United States. This is a federation of states, not a single homogenous entity, and actually, I kindof like it that way.
Actually, given how close the nationwide popular vote is, the concept is probably better for the Republicans in the short term: There's bugger-all chance of California's 55 going Red any time soon, but they just need to swing a few thousand votes elsewhere, and the State suddently votes for the other guy. (Much to the displeasure, I would wager, of the Blue voters)
NTM