alohacyberian wrote:
> "Gunner" wrote in message
> news:pvdpf1t4ihp4st25nrc2nh87um4019m3og@4ax.com...
[snip]
> >
> > Ok. Tell us why its a bad idea today. You can skip the parts about
> > "its bad because the inherently Democratic cities cannot overrule the
> > inherently conservative rural areas" We already know that's to be
> > considered a good thing.
> >
>
> Thanks for providing the incredibly predictable logical fallacy #1 that the
> proponents of the Electoral College always trot out in its defense, when in
> fact the converse is true. The Electoral College does NOT prevent the large
> liberal cities from out voting the smaller, conservative rural areas - in fact
> it GUARANTEES that the large urban areas will trump the votes of the rural
> areas and negate the rural vote! It does the opposite of what the proponents
> claim it does, yet those self-same proponents cannot defend their positions
> with logic, rather they trot out the same old logical fallacies and repeat
> them ad infinitum.
Within a state, the urban areas will always distort a states result,
EC or no. But nationally, the EC gives greater voice to votes from
smaller states (not much greater but....)
>
> As for my explaining why I think the Electoral College is an unfair
> anachronism,
[snip]
I guess I'd ask "as compared to what?" If you are suggesting a
straight popular vote, I'd argue. If you mean just changing the
influence of smaller states relative to larger ones, I think you
might get a fair amount of agreement.
|