What do you make of the argument that the electoral college provides a check to a ‘dictatorship of the majority’ where politicians only cater to wealthier cities in big states, ignoring the less populated rural areas? Does the current system not provide a sort of early warning system, indicating where some of these areas are experiencing discontent, *before* they explode into extra-democratic phenomena like rural guerrilla groups for example?
Wherever there is power, there is danger because power corrupts. The "tyranny of the majority" is a legitimate concern. However, I do not believe that is an argument for the electoral college. I believe that is an argument for the constitutional protection of everybody's rights. I live in a deep blue state. As result, I am effectively disenfranchised. If I lived in Pennsylvania, my vote would matter. This is not a happy situation if you believe, as I do, in one person . . . one vote.
What do you make of the argument that the electoral college provides a check to a ‘dictatorship of the majority’ where politicians only cater to wealthier cities in big states, ignoring the less populated rural areas? Does the current system not provide a sort of early warning system, indicating where some of these areas are experiencing discontent, *before* they explode into extra-democratic phenomena like rural guerrilla groups for example?
Wherever there is power, there is danger because power corrupts. The "tyranny of the majority" is a legitimate concern. However, I do not believe that is an argument for the electoral college. I believe that is an argument for the constitutional protection of everybody's rights. I live in a deep blue state. As result, I am effectively disenfranchised. If I lived in Pennsylvania, my vote would matter. This is not a happy situation if you believe, as I do, in one person . . . one vote.