I consider myself more defined by my age and profession than by my hometown but in an electoral college system it is only that latter fact that affects how a vote is weighted.
The electoral college is a form of protection for the naturally less densely populated agrarian states against the densely populated urban ones. Without the electoral college, the colonies would not have agreed to unite under a shared federal government.
This is commonly repeated, but it's BS. What "protection" does the electoral college give to Kansas, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Idaho, or Montana? Presidential candidates don't pay any attention to any of those "less densely populated agrarian states". In addition, dense states like NJ, NY, CT, and Mass don't get attention from candidates. California doesn't get any attention either, so what gives?
The states that get the attention are the swing states with the highest number of electoral votes, simply because the electoral college incentivizes trying to swing a small number of voters in such states.
Watch some of these videos from CGP Grey for more info: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k
Their collective voice along with the rest of the “heartland” is the backbone of the GOP. Trump and Bush both won without the popular vote because the electoral college amplified their collective voice.
The electorate doesn’t make them win, it gives them better odds. The campaign focus on swing states should explain itself...
I don't see a single good reason for the electoral college. And you haven't explained what they're being protected from and why they need such protection.
The electoral college, however, serves the explicit purpose of making Wyoming votes count more exactly because they are extremely disadvantaged when attempting to impact federal policy. The same argument against the electoral college could be made against the Senate (why should every state get the same number of Senators?), but I don't hear too many disagreements (yet, at least) that the Senate as an institution has value.
The top four states have roughly a third of the national population; if federal policy were enacted purely by population, why shouldn't they allocate all federal funds to themselves and deprive other states entirely? The Senate and the electoral college give enough of an advantage to small states that, even though no one or two small states are liable to flip an election by themselves, they are still able to have a voice in federal policy by coalition-building.
I think this explains my point very well. Thanks
You don't hear the same argument against the senate as often because it's practically impossible to get rid of it. But many people are still against it (myself included).
>why shouldn't they allocate all federal funds to themselves and deprive other states entirely?
That's a funny argument, because red states currently receive a lot more federal funding than what they pay in taxes, and blue states pay more taxes than what they get back in return. Plus, blue states actually want to give red states even more money, when you consider that blue states support more federal funding for healthcare and other programs.
Everyone is always concerned with protecting the smaller, less dense states, but really it's those states that have disproportionately more power. California contributes so much to red states, and what do they get in return? A bunch of senators and presidents who do nothing about climate change, thereby letting California burn even more. California is the one that needs more protection here, not the states whose farmers are getting six figure checks as bail-outs because the president they elected doesn't understand how trade wars work.
It's easy to imagine a political party that runs on a "cheap power for the cities" policy which involves mining and burning coal a long way away from any city.
Y'know, this line makes me wonder if reframing it would help some people understand better:
The electoral college is affirmative action for voting minorities.
Harvard wants to send another 40. Science is, after all, more important these days than natural resources. Just compare Switzerland (absolutely nothing of value in the ground) to Equatorial Guinea (top-10 oil reserves).
The one export market where the US dominates is culture. Mind if Hollywood sends in a few representatives?
But I do think that farmers (for example) contribute a lot to a country and would lack voting power in a purely population based presidential election system.
I'd note that this argument goes against my politics: Farmers as a block are rarely progressives.
Edit: Elsewhere gameman144 explains my point better than I have been able to:
> The top four states have roughly a third of the national population; if federal policy were enacted purely by population, why shouldn't they allocate all federal funds to themselves and deprive other states entirely? The Senate and the electoral college give enough of an advantage to small states that, even though no one or two small states are liable to flip an election by themselves, they are still able to have a voice in federal policy by coalition-building.