|
Here's why we should keep two senators in every state, whether it be CA or ND. Because that was the deal we made with the small states, in order to get them to buy into the creation of the republic. They saw, even back then, that in a pure democracy, rural areas would be dominated by urban areas whose interests were different. So to get the small states (colonies I guess) to agree to sign the constitution, they were offered a disproportionate voice in the senate and in the electoral college.
The reasons for that (preventing rural areas from being dominated by urban areas) are probably more prevalent today than they were back then. A deal is a deal, that was the deal that was made.
It wasn't that long ago the both senators from many small states were democrats. So instead of abolishing the electoral college, a better path for the democrats might be to either convince people in those small states that liberalism is superior to conservatism, or to come up with an agenda that's more acceptable to rural areas. Telling those people that they're all racist bitter clingers and deplorable, might not be the best way to win them over.
Liberals are in a mindset of "here's my ideology, and if it doesn't win the election, I'm going to destroy the system, because if I lose, it can only mean that the system is rigged, it cannot be that San Francisco liberalism just isn't what's best for everybody".
|
Threaded Mode