TheNetsFan wrote:Roy Tarpley wrote:TheNetsFan wrote:The system was instituted, and remains as it is for very legitimate reasons. The electoral college is necessary to ensure that every region/state/class is properly represented. I could see an argument against the winner take all allocation of a state's electoral votes, but a pure popular vote would force candidates to overwhelmingly cater to the most densely populated areas, where the sheer number of voters, and the convenience of voting is vastly higher. Imagine if Hurricane Sandy had hit NY/NJ about 1 week later than it did. Should NY and NJ have been any less represented in the election, because they only had 40% voter turnout instead of a more typical 60% due to a natural disaster?
Electoral votes (& House seats) are allocated predominantly based on state population, and it's more reasonable to expect that the views of those who don't vote are more in line with those in their neighborhood than the population of the US as a whole. The nature of the winner take all nature of the electoral votes suppresses voter turnout, because in a very blue or red state, your vote ultimately doesn't matter, and because of that lower turnout, the popular vote is meaningless.
The last statement is one that could cause much debate, and the way you frame it is loaded with bias. In my opinion, and that of many others on both sides of the political spectrum, there is no reason why voters should not have to present ID to vote. How Voter ID gets spun as anti-minority is mind boggling.
In a democracy, we should be trying to increase voting as much as possible, not throwing up roadblocks.
Many Americans don't have an ID card necessary for voting and these tend to disproportionately be low-income, racial and ethnic minorities, the elderly, and the disabled. They often can't get ID cards because they can't afford the things that are required for government-issued ID cards, like birth certificates. Not only that, sometimes voter ID laws are applied in discriminatory fashion.
After decades of white America trying to disenfranchise the black voter, including through literacy tests, poll taxes, and other bull ideas that have the veneer of impartiality, the voter ID requirement is just another tool that is being used to suppress minority votes.
What's truly mind boggling to me is why we, as red-blooded, democracy-loving Americans, aren't doing more to increase voter turnout, for example, by making elections on weekends rather than a Tuesday when people are working. Or why we're so concerned about voter fraud when fraud cases are almost non-existent.
Given that you need ID of some sore, at least a Social Security Number, to do a number of routine things (purchase alcohol, drive, get a job, cash a check, set up phone service), I don't buy it. However, if it really is a problem, then don't turn a blind-eye toward the symptom, rather offer a solution. Subsidize state-ID cards, birth certificates, and anything else needed to make it happen.
Currently, I can walk into a voting place, give any name I know in the district and vote. I've seen family members names on the voter logs that I know moved out of state or passed away years ago. Do you know somebody away on business or vacation? Give their name & vote twice.
At the end of the day, it only matters in a handful of swing states, and would be statistically meaningful in even less.
the issue is, the people who want these laws don't want to do what you've suggested (which is a great suggestion) because that means brown and black people will be voting their asses out of office.
