« on: May 29, 2008, 12:54:53 PM »
Should a candidate be allowed to ignore Wyomings needs and desires merely because fewer people live there? Without the electoral college, this is exactly the problem.
More aptly put, California, Texas, and New York would have the power to swing elections against the will of the rest of the country, making this less of a democracy than we have as is. What we don't need, as a nation, is to put the power of the more populace states above the responsibility that the President has to the entire nation.
I think you're underestimating the similarities of people across the nation. We all need basically the same things: financial security, physical security, opportunities for a good education, affordable access to healthcare, an environment that won't be detrimental to our health . . . . Whether a person lives in rural Wyoming or NYC, he's still going to need a job to support himself, government services for things like roads and police, schools for his kids, etc. Now, I know the nature of a person's needs might differ based on whether that person lives in a rural environment or a city, however, I think there are enough rural people throughout the nation that (if they vote) the voice of Wyoming won't be drowned out. There are enough city-dwellers and suburbanites that if they hall vote, their various blocs will be heard. My point is that I think the farmer in Wyoming has more in common with the farmer in Indiana than with the whole state of Wyoming. The city-dweller in NYC probably has more in common with the city-dweller in Chicago than he does with the dairy-farmer in up-state New York. The federal government (and president) need to look out for the nation as a whole. I personally don't feel that the electoral college system achieves that purpose.