Reply #5: I don't see this. [View All]

[Goldmund]

"hugely increased incentives for vote fraud in uniparty Republican or Democratic states"

Why? The concept of a "state" wouldn't apply at all. If anything, the EC system increases the incentives of vote fraud in states -- for ex, in the last election, all they had to do was rig a few thousand votes. In a nationwide election, you'd need a few hundred thousand.

"no incentive for presidential candidates to campaign outside their biggest, most populous vote-getting territories"

So what? 99.999999% of people only ever see candidates in their living rooms, on their TV sets.

"purely regional presidential candidates who could win on the strength of overwhelming popular vote in just a few states"

Again, so what? Isn't that the way it should be? Shouldn't what's good for LA or NYC get more consideration than what's good for Wyoming, being that there are many, many more people in those areas?

It's a fact that rural and urban areas have different mindsets. This, of course, doesn't apply to all people -- I have met some extremely liberal people from the boonies -- but one of the main reasons why "red states" are "red" and "blue states" are "blue" is that rural people tend to be more conservative.

So tell me, why does it take 3 people from a city to equal the weight of a single person from the country? Why do opinions of a likely conservative from Nebraska far outweigh the opinion of a likely liberal from NYC?