Electoral College Vote VS National Popular Vote

[Green Ranger]

I like the idea that your votes go to elect, essentially, an expert who represents you, who knows your area and areas issues as well as your needs and can surrogate for the area in a legal sense. Then, that expert votes for his party / the people he represents equalling one electoral vote. That's his job. And that elective should be relatively bi-partisan. (in a perfect world.)

It's also a weird ceremonial middle-step - it's completely unnecessary (and probably rather expensive) and was really only put in place place as a half-measure between Congress having the power to elect a President and the people having that power. I mean, think about it - you could keep the system of the electoral college and get rid of actual, physical electors entirely through automation - faithless electors are a rare occurrence and a triviality in the greater scheme of things anyway.

It's interesting how you look at electors, though. My perspective varies on it pretty significantly, and in a far less favourable light. Historically, America's idea of voting wasn't inclusive from the offset. It's been a long, steady evolution over time. The electoral college, to me, is a relic of that bygone time when the votes of only the affluent and educated white man held any value. Thankfully, America has moved on from that, but the electoral college, to me, is a constant reminder of that original attitude that the 'common' man couldn't be trusted to vote in his own best interests and needed someone to do it for him.

And it's why I'll never agree with the electoral college as a system. There is an underlying arrogance to the very nature of its existance, a dismissal of the value of each vote, an assumption that the people of America can vote for their President, but can't be trusted to make the right choice. Because that's essentially what's being implied by having electors cast votes in the college on behalf of the people - that the people need someone better than them to make the call for them on who the right candidate is. That every vote doesn't count. That an elector can defy the will of the people they represent because they think they know better (again, not that it happens often, but the implicit arrogance in the act or ability to act of a faithless voter speaks volumes about the system that enables it).

And that's all before we get into the issue of districts and gerrymandering and whatnot, which you yourself agree is a problem. If it was a flat, national popular vote then gerrymandering couldn't happen because you wouldn't be able to redefine the borders of districts based on political gain. Though, let's be clear here - district borders do need to be able to move and change over time under the current system. That's not to say the current system isn't being abused or rigged - it is, absolutely - but over time population percentages change and fluctuate as new population centers are established, grow, decline or disappear entirely, and so district borders for voting purposes do need to be able to fluctuate to ensure voter weights are roughly accurate. But it'll never be as accurate, as simple (from an equality or vote weight perspective) and as fair as simply removing those district boundaries entirely and relying on a national popular vote.

Because that is the only way that every vote is equal, and every voter has full control over accurately representing their vote.

 

[Cheshire]

Though do keep going, its really interesting​