|
I've always been a big opponent of the Electoral College. It worked great 200 years ago when counting a popular vote was technologically unfeasible. But today, that's simply not the case. Counting the popular vote nationwide is already being done, as the last two elections made painfully clear. But those popular tallies just don't mean anything more than a soundbite on the news coverage now. And I really don't worry about large metro areas swinging things, because to try and skew more power to rural voters to compensate is essentially saying that rural voters are more important because their votes would then count disproportionately in their ability to affect the outcome of the election. Suppose that the entire heartland wants Candidate A, but every metro area wants Candidate B and the final popular tally is for B because the cities hold more people. Wouldn’t it be a little undemocratic to elect A because voting power was skewed to the heartland to “make things equal?” Every individual vote equal is what I feel needs to happen, and that can only happen with a popular vote.
As far as Maryland and their idea, I think it’s noble, but somewhat akin to a Rube Goldberg device for solving a problem. If they really want to press the issue, then their representatives need to start pushing it vocally in DC and get others on the bandwagon. The American public loves a good cause du jour, and I have no doubt that the Electoral College could be made one. It just needs the proper attention.
|