Unthinking Majority wrote:California has 52x the population as North Dakota, but only has 18.3x more electoral college votes. Why? This is nonsensical and undemocratic. And this is coming from me who thinks most people in California have gone batshit crazy politically.
It's entirely rational.
You just don't agree with the goal of the way the system was initially designed, and the principles behind it.
The Founding Father talk about "democracy" but they were afraid of "the people", and they wanted themselves (rich white male elites) to maintain control of the system. This is why they only allowed land-owning white men to have a vote, and why they didn't give "the people" control of the POTUS but gave it instead to the EC who reserved the right to vote against the popular vote in their state if they didn't vote the way the elites wanted.
This is total horseshit. They created a system with checks on "the peoples" votes, but where's the checks on the votes of the EC?
I think it was actually the case that they did want the electoral college to follow the local popular vote. I think the ability to differ from the local election results was intended to be a way of dealing with a crisis of immediate urgency or perhaps even fraud charges.
I think it is also the case that they wanted the country to be a reflection of their values and their people, and so the rules made perfect sense. Keep in mind, the land owners did include very regular men who were farmers and shopkeepers.
I would also like to point out... Your screen name is certainly a rich contrast to what you are arguing here .
August 8th, 2019