|
|
|
|
|
|
by perl4ever
2966 days ago
|
|
|
I think it clearly irrational to support/oppose a system based on the fact that you just won/lost under it, if you don't expect it to be biased in the future. I don't think that opposing a correction to the system should even count as an opinion, because the present system was not designed; it evolved, so any appeal to a worthwhile purpose is post-hoc reasoning. I attribute the support for the current system entirely to people who must validate their feelings that the ends of getting Bush & Trump elected justified the means. This means it is plausible that it is in nobody's interest, when we look to the future. |
|
|
Huh? Where'd you get this from? The Electoral College did not evolve, it was specifically designed by the Framers as a compromise between the rural and urban states.
>I attribute the support for the current system entirely to people who must validate their feelings that the ends of getting Bush & Trump elected justified the means. This means it is plausible that it is in nobody's interest, when we look to the future.
You're provably wrong here: The system was specifically designed the way it was to give more power to the rural (lower population density) states. That's exactly what it's done in elections where the popular vote winner lost. The people who support it continue to support it for that same reason: it's giving them the result they want, which is disproportionate power to rural states and rural voters like them.
It's absolutely in their interest to support that: they have different values than urban voters, and they want to win elections. The EC system helps them achieve this by tipping the scale in their favor, so of course they want it to remain unaltered.
Your assertion is that it's in "nobody's interest" is plainly wrong. You only think that because you're biased in favor of your own interests, which align with urban voters (like me), and you think that your interests should be all voters' interests, or that they're correct. Rural voters don't agree with you, and they think they should have more voting power per person than urban voters, so of course the current system is in their interest, even if it is inherently unfair.