I never understood why it was setup this way in the first place. The only thin I can think of is that the larger states wanted a larger say in who was president...
The reason it was set up in the first place was to give the small states any say in the Presidential election at all. A popular vote system puts almost all the power in the large cities (i.e. the population centers). That being the case, the candidates would campaign in New York, L.A., Chicago, etc. exclusively and leave the non-neglible population in the smaller and western states to rot. They have no influence on Presidential elections and so their issues have no interest to the candidates. By giving even the smallest states 3 E.V.'s they are now (as a bloc) worth a hell of a lot more to the candidates and they at least have to pay lip service to them. They also have to fix their issues every so often to maintain their hold on them too. Dividing the electoral votes by popular vote has a similar, but less profound effect. Dividing them by congressional district is a little less drastic an effect because you reduce the (for example) 3 million people to 8 to 9 votes instead of overwhelming the rural counties...
I don't know, one person one vote still sounds more democratic to me. Anyway, it seems that white land owners (majority of rural states' voting population) have had plenty of time to have more than their fair share of power, especially when it comes to representation via voting.
In case no one has let you know, you can vote even if you don't own your land... and if you're not white too. In fact, every citizen over 18 can vote.
Really, I don't understand the significance of the white land-owner comment. Its not like there's a National White Land-Owner Lobby or anything... Are you saying that white land-owners don't deserve the vote? Land-Ownership hasn't been a voting prerequisite since the 14th amendment in the mid-1860s, if it was a requirement before that. Maybe the non-sequitor was just for humor, and if it was, I missed it, and I apologize...
As for the one person, one vote: Perhaps its time to become a democracy, but we have done pretty darn well as a Republic for 230 years. Talk to your senator or representative about submitting a Constitutional Amendment. If you believe in it, go for it. And I am sincere. I may even lobby my representatives to approve it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2004-10-16 05:07 am (UTC)Since you asked....
Date: 2004-10-16 09:01 am (UTC)The reason it was set up in the first place was to give the small states any say in the Presidential election at all. A popular vote system puts almost all the power in the large cities (i.e. the population centers). That being the case, the candidates would campaign in New York, L.A., Chicago, etc. exclusively and leave the non-neglible population in the smaller and western states to rot. They have no influence on Presidential elections and so their issues have no interest to the candidates. By giving even the smallest states 3 E.V.'s they are now (as a bloc) worth a hell of a lot more to the candidates and they at least have to pay lip service to them. They also have to fix their issues every so often to maintain their hold on them too. Dividing the electoral votes by popular vote has a similar, but less profound effect. Dividing them by congressional district is a little less drastic an effect because you reduce the (for example) 3 million people to 8 to 9 votes instead of overwhelming the rural counties...
Re: Since you asked....
Date: 2004-10-16 10:16 am (UTC)Re: Since you asked....
Date: 2004-10-18 11:04 am (UTC)Really, I don't understand the significance of the white land-owner comment. Its not like there's a National White Land-Owner Lobby or anything... Are you saying that white land-owners don't deserve the vote? Land-Ownership hasn't been a voting prerequisite since the 14th amendment in the mid-1860s, if it was a requirement before that. Maybe the non-sequitor was just for humor, and if it was, I missed it, and I apologize...
As for the one person, one vote: Perhaps its time to become a democracy, but we have done pretty darn well as a Republic for 230 years. Talk to your senator or representative about submitting a Constitutional Amendment. If you believe in it, go for it. And I am sincere. I may even lobby my representatives to approve it.