As your last paragraph shows, the Electoral College does not ensure minority representation of the states (or ”tyranny of the majority of states”) because if enough people moved to Texas it would decide everything.
As is right now, about 22% of the population controls half the EC votes. And the senate already ensure representation of all states, so pwople in smaller states have many times more power than fellow citizens in larger states in all parts of the government except the House.
I'm referring to the executive branch. Less populated state representation in one branch does not negate the need for it in the others. The founders (wisely imo) left national proportional representation to a single entity, the purse-string holders in the House.
Removing the electoral college removes the incentive for a presidential candidate to campaign to most of the states.
I've never understood this argument at all. What's so special about the states that there needs to be power rebalancing in order to prevent larger states from getting more influence? What's so special about Washington DC that it needs more EC votes per capita than New York or California? Why does rural voters in Wyoming need more voting power per capita than rural people in Texas?
Because, everytime I hear the arguments about culture and values I don't see how those arguments don't extend to minorities, it would be more modern to set up the Electoral College to accurately represent the diversity of cultures in the US based on actual demographic blocks. Shouldn't Muslim American voters get more EC votes per capita than Christian American voters? The same argument could then also be made for African American voters, shouldn't they get more EC votes per capita than White voters? Go to an old people's home and talk to the African American residents there and ask them if a majority of White people has ever implemented laws that oppress the minority Black population in the US. A US president could pander almost exclusively to the White population and win under the current system, and the EC actually makes demographic disparity even worse since the states that benefits the most from the EC have a higher proportion of Christian, White Americans.
It's not ethical to make decisions on how to treat people based on their ethnicity. We fought very hard to throw these concepts you seem to be promoting into the dustbin of history. They are going to stay there.
States are sovereigns. Surrounded by borders. From borders people derive some control over their future. That's why we call this a union. Stop representing them, and they will leave said union.
I don’t want to treat people differently based on their ethnicity, and I also don’t want to treat people differently based on their geographical location. If I move 15 feet in the same country my vote should not become more powerful. What I’m arguing against is treating a person who resides in a larger state as less important than a smaller state because the reasons given for could easily extend to treating minorities differently, I’m not justifying treating minorities differently.
We can adequately represent states and have a popular vote to elect the government too. Look at Germany or Australia. A state with a smaller population will simply be given less influence, to do otherwise is to treat the people in larger states unfairly. The Constitution says ”by the people, for the people and of the people” not ”by the states, for the states and of the states” so it’s pretty clear from history that the spirit of the country was to let the people elect the government, not the states, and that the Electoral College was a compromise to let the states approve (especially those with a lot of slaves since ”people” and ”citizens” weren’t exactly synonyms back then). I don’t understand what benefits campaigning in every state, but not to the majority of the people, would bring in terms of a more democratic country if everyone are supposed to be equal regardless of race, religion or geographic location.
This is not a pure democracy. Pure democracy is not a noble goal, it's mob rule.
differently based on their geographical location
I do. Borders give the people inside them self-determinism. They provide the market of ideas. The contain bad ideas long enough for others to learn from them. They protect good ideas long enough for others to see the effects.
Imagine what a huge problem it is for China to have it's people see the capabilities of an average American.
Setting out Aus and Germany as role models is... bad. They don't have even remotely free societies. They have class systems. The power classes get to protect their lives and families, while the rest need to find a phone and hope the police arrive in time. Their ideas of free speech are worse than worthless. Heck one is teetering on banning random numbers.
If I move 15 feet in the same country my vote should not become more powerful
Why? You are free to move. Maybe you think all countries are the same? That's not how a Union works. If you don't represent each state (see "why borders" above) then the Union fails. By every measure the US is incredibly successful. Emulating worse off countries isn't a good idea.
So, how is the EC not a rule of mob then except that it weighs some part of the mob greater than others?
And, because states are different you want that to reflect on the people in that a state that’s different should have citizens with weaker or stronger influence on politics?
You are also cherry picking issues to portray Australia and Germany as worse. The people there have more ways to influence government, their populations are more active in politics overall and the inequalities among classes is much smaller than in the US.[1] The US has a whole host of problems with civil liberties too, a lot of them introduced by politicians pandering to the more politically powerful, smaller states. When 22% of the population controls more than enough to win the election that will give rise to the distrust in government and drop in political paryicipation we see in America, a problem that’s gotten worse almost every year for the past 50 years.
And, I don’t really get it, you mention that people who feel unfairly represented can just move but you don’t think the same argument holds if a person from a smaller state would feel the same in a completely equal voting system? Why do people have to live in Rhode Island? Couldn’t they just move to Boston if they think their smaller state doesn’t have the appropriate influence?
