The electoral college helps protect people who live in America, but not in the most populous areas. Under mob rule, politicians can support policies specifically targeted to helping affluent/dense populations in cities, and also support policies which further marginalize the remaining 90% of the country. Can you name another mechanism which would achieve that goal of protecting a broader interest better?
this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2025
9 points (90.9% liked)
USpolitics
881 readers
88 users here now
founded 2 years ago
This is the correct answer to OPs question. What's the real, human, and arguably logical defense of a system that ignores the popular vote in a "democracy".
The idea is that you have to weight the system to ensure leaders have to pay attention to everyone, not just focus on winning NYC and LA and maybe a couple other big cities, completely ignoring anyone who lives outside a densely populated area.
Source: raised by a conservative who believes this very thing. Not saying I agree personally but I definitely grew up hearing this idea.
The Senate takes care of that, giving low population states much more representation, even while those welfare states suck the teat of the more populous states. The House, hence the electoral, is supposed to represent the people. Yet, once again, due to bullshit politicians flipping double birds at The Constitution, the number of reps was frozen nearly a century ago, seemingly enshrining very unequal representation.
While that's true for the legislative branch, the executive is different, or at least it's supposed to be. The point is to get the president to represent all Americans, not just those in cities. I'm not agreeing with the idea, I'm just trying to answer so OP can get some insight into the argument.
Personally I think the EC was a bad idea but so was the 17th amendment. Of course, without the 17th amendment there would never be a dem majority in the Senate so you win some you lose some I guess.
This system is simply outdated. In a world where every single vote can easily be counted to determine the majority, no one needs to ride horseback to Washington to announce the result of the election in a given state. This is elitist and greatly favors states with small populations.
In a democracy, what should be important is what the voters want, not how to manipulate an outdated system.
Well yeah, that’s obvious. But I’m really trying to figure out what the opposing view point is.
Unfortunately, I can't help with that.
The only "argument" I can think of is the fact that this system can be manipulated in such a way that the rich and powerful can push their candidates past the will of the people.
Above all because the Electoral College basically guarantees that there can only be two major parties.
I think that's the simple reason why it hasn't been abolished long ago.
You wont die a virgin since your country will fuck you every 4 years