Re: A Different Kind of Question
The electoral college doesn't really stop populous states from dominating, certainly not in modern times but maybe long in the past. Each state gets a number of electoral votes based on its Congressional delegation size, which is based on the population of the state. Therefore, more populous states get more votes. Without it, in a purely popular vote, every vote would count equally regardless of the states. The candidates would still focus on particular states, because focusing on a populous state could possibly entice more voters with a single rally or ad or promise, but it would totally eliminate the concept of swing states. The electoral college simply changes which states dominate, because candidates feel like some states are a "lock", and they know they'll get the entire count of votes for that state, so they focus on the swing states where they can nudge the balance just enough to get ALL that state's votes. It makes everyone feel like their vote barely counts because it makes the whole state vote for one candidate when the combined votes from other states could have turned it the other way. With a direct popular vote, at least there's a better chance that your vote could add up with the ones from other states to turn the election to the side you want, instead of taking your vote and turning it to look like you want the same thing that the majority in your state want, and the true preference of the country overall is applied. Even if some large states did dominate more, at least that would mean that more of the population actually wanted that result.
The electoral college is almost a feudal system. It's an outdated system designed for a time when a popular vote was simply impractical in any reasonable amount of time. There was simply no way to tally the votes of every person in every state and then get those tallies to Washington DC without weeks of waiting. There wasn't even really a chance to campaign widely because of travel times. All most people got was some news reports and public letters and stuff (and candidates didn't dedicate an entire year to it back then). Instead they'd just designate a bunch of people in the state and let them chose, using whatever manner that state wanted. For the past 100 years we've had the ability to do it all within a couple of days, aside from a possible final recount with all the ballots brought to a central place. And now with it all done electronically, even on paper ballots, we could manage like 99% complete counts within a few hours of the polls closing, if there weren't inevitable complaints about the counts and required recounts and hand counts, and some groups that will simply delay and delay and delay in the hope that after 7 tries the results will change or they'll find a way to get rid of some votes or "find" some votes. There's simply no real, solid reason for the electoral college now. Just tradition, and fear of change, and the simple fact of some politicians knowing that it makes it far easier for them to push the results their way if they don't have to treat everyone equally. Unfortunately the boomer politicians who have that kind of outlook just keep living on and never getting voted out so it won't change.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
