The point is that people in Alaska have more say in today's elections due to the Electoral College than they would under a pure popular vote system. We are a Union and the Electoral College gives each state a meaningful voice in the process.
The point is that people in Alaska have more say in today's elections due to the Electoral College than they would under a pure popular vote system. We are a Union and the Electoral College gives each state a meaningful voice in the process.
Meaningful in what way? A few voters in a few states over ruling the majority means doesn’t say to voters their participation is meaningful — unless of course, they are willing to live in a country where that minority rules. And yes, this was compromise to get the slave states to sign on to the constitution. Now that our politics have changed, campaigns have computer driven get out the votes strategies, legislation is written based on computer algorithms to favor the majority state party we have an unintended consequence. Add to that the gutting of the civil rights voting act and other protections.
More meaningful in the fact that the people of Alaska have more influence under the current system than if it was only based on popular vote. Currently they get 3 of the 538 Electoral votes. The less populated states (with fewer Electors) get more of a say under the current system.
Why would the people of Alaska deserve more influence? Than voters in larger states? This larger influence idea is again the opposite of what you initially stated.
If that was the total goal, then the writers of the constitution could have devised the system where a limited number of people in each state could vote.
No, the POINT is that, per SCOTUS, the law is one person, one vote and has been for 60 years. Under the Electoral College, some people's votes count more than others.
The point is that people in Alaska have more say in today's elections due to the Electoral College than they would under a pure popular vote system. We are a Union and the Electoral College gives each state a meaningful voice in the process.
Meaningful in what way? A few voters in a few states over ruling the majority means doesn’t say to voters their participation is meaningful — unless of course, they are willing to live in a country where that minority rules. And yes, this was compromise to get the slave states to sign on to the constitution. Now that our politics have changed, campaigns have computer driven get out the votes strategies, legislation is written based on computer algorithms to favor the majority state party we have an unintended consequence. Add to that the gutting of the civil rights voting act and other protections.
More meaningful in the fact that the people of Alaska have more influence under the current system than if it was only based on popular vote. Currently they get 3 of the 538 Electoral votes. The less populated states (with fewer Electors) get more of a say under the current system.
Why would the people of Alaska deserve more influence? Than voters in larger states? This larger influence idea is again the opposite of what you initially stated.
If that was the total goal, then the writers of the constitution could have devised the system where a limited number of people in each state could vote.
No, the POINT is that, per SCOTUS, the law is one person, one vote and has been for 60 years. Under the Electoral College, some people's votes count more than others.
I believe the Electoral College is part of our Constitution. What does SCOTUS have to do with it?
If enough people/elected representatives agree with your view, there are legal ways to change our Constitution.
Personally I don't think it's broke.