To be completely nonpartisan and fair, it seems the best thing to do at this juncture is to get rid of the electoral college. From my understanding of United States history and politics, the college was formed to make sure dumb dirt poor farmers and imbeciles couldn't sway elections- only the votes of educated, upstanding electors would count.
However, education has since improved, and even a mere 18 year old can educate himself on the planks and platform of a party and its candidate. We aren't a nation of uneducated rural farmers who spite Washington- on the contrary, we're a nation of (sub)urban people with a minority rural population that is still educated enough to make an informed vote.
Even more agonizing is the classic liberal-in-a-red-state or conservative-in-a-blue-state tale. For instance, I tend to lean Democratic on most issues, but my vote for a Democratic presidential candidate more than likely will not "count" because I live in Georgia, where my party is a minority. Similarly, a conservative in California or Massachusetts will find his vote will not "count".
I understand that an Iowan or Nebraskan may be felt left out as candidates will naturally propel their campaigns on densely populated areas. However, is this any better than candidates zooming in on a handful of "swing states"? It seems a lot more fair for the American people to decide who become Commander in Chief.
Any thoughts or comments?
However, education has since improved, and even a mere 18 year old can educate himself on the planks and platform of a party and its candidate. We aren't a nation of uneducated rural farmers who spite Washington- on the contrary, we're a nation of (sub)urban people with a minority rural population that is still educated enough to make an informed vote.
Even more agonizing is the classic liberal-in-a-red-state or conservative-in-a-blue-state tale. For instance, I tend to lean Democratic on most issues, but my vote for a Democratic presidential candidate more than likely will not "count" because I live in Georgia, where my party is a minority. Similarly, a conservative in California or Massachusetts will find his vote will not "count".
I understand that an Iowan or Nebraskan may be felt left out as candidates will naturally propel their campaigns on densely populated areas. However, is this any better than candidates zooming in on a handful of "swing states"? It seems a lot more fair for the American people to decide who become Commander in Chief.
Any thoughts or comments?
Comment