Too often do you see an entire state vote one way or another but the large cities determine the election. I would suggest that we treat state elections the same way as federal. Take New York for example. The majority of the counties vote red but if just Kings county votes blue, the rest of the state loses. We need more representation for rural areas in this country. Laws and representation in a large city, should not be the determining voice for people who have nothing to do with said cities. If each county would be given a number of
To counter, personally I believe in one person one vote. And with the electoral college this is not the case. For example Wyoming has roughly 170,000 citizens per 1 electoral college vote while California has 800,000 citizens per electoral college vote. This means a Californian vote is not equal to a Wyomingite’s vote. Furthermore, to bring up New York, since NY is a safe democrat state all those republicans in NY in the eyes of the electoral college don’t matter. This is because of the winner take all system. But all the surplus votes for the democrats in NY also don’t matter because you only need a majority. Now I’m not advocating for a first past the post system. I am simply advocating against the electoral college and the problems it presents. These issues would still be present at the state level if implemented. Personally I’d like a rank choice voting system. Or something better if I come across it in election theory research. Thanks
Washington State is the same, King County decides everything for the entire state. And we’re a “sanctuary “ so now we have thousands more of illegal migrants shifting our electoral college. What do we do about that fact, swing states have had millions pour in to upset the balance?
My thought is maybe break it down by county or group a few counties together into regions within a state. Give each county (or region) one “vote” according to however the people within the area vote. Then, majority rules. Whichever candidate wins the most counties/ regions in a state gets that state. Then the Electoral College would basically function the same as it does now from that point. I feel this would give those that live outside large heavily populated areas that usually turn the entire state one direction or the other, a sense that their vote actually counts within their state.
1 Like
The core issue is money: It is more efficient to focus campaign efforts in high-density areas. The number of dollars per vote only goes up as the campaign goes more rural, so rural interests tend to be more neglected.
Some of this imbalance has been reduced by the internet, which provides a space where the reach of a candidate is not determined by population density. However, in-person campaign efforts are still vital, so the disadvantage remains.
This is what I’d imagine an electoral college at the state level to look like:
The strength here is two-fold:
- Delegates of rural communities are just as accessible for prospective candidates as those of urban communities.
- Rural communities can pool their electoral power together, regardless of their dispersion across the state.