- Aug 11, 2005
- Reaction score
- Maryland, U.S.A.
- Political Leaning
cnredd said:Not true and accuarate at all...
I'll throw out a scaled down version....
Let's say there are 5 states...California, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and Utah...California is overtly Democrat...the other four overtly Republican...If they ALL had equal voter populations, you'd never see a Democratic President ever again...But that's not the case...quite the opposite...
Since California's voter population outweighs the other four states combined, there would be no need to campaign in any of them...Why push for 500,000 votes across thousands of square miles when you can push to get that in San Diego alone?...No one will go there...
Now AFTER the election, who will the winner pander to?...The people who got him in there...No representation whatsoever on the Executive level from the four states that were deemed irrelevant...California would be catered to and the rest of the country could go scratch...
Currently, populations of the top 10 states outweigh the remaining 40...If there was no Electoral College, the same scenario mentioned above would come into play...The nominees would see no reason to go to unpopulated areas when they could get more votes just by going to the states where there are large cities...
And guess who resides in most of the large cities?...That's right...The entitlement Liberals!
That's the whole thrust of your argument....A thinly veiled way to marginalize the "flyover" states and focus on the places where Liberals live...
That is essentially what already occurs today. President's concentrate on the states who have the most electorate votes.
So, I don't see how your argument stands against mine.
Again, the representation would stay the same in Congress. So, I don't think there would be any "pandering" as you say.
Impeach Bush (stay focused on the topic, mr. mod)