08-08-2016, 04:21 PM
True, but in urban America you have smart Democrats, while in rural America you have dumb Republicans. The city people who run the show may live in urban America, but they don't have to votes to carry urban districts.
I don't necessarily oppose the current system. We could vote by congressional district, but in that case the federal government would need to certify that independent, non-partisan commissions have drawn districts in each state that are not gerrymandered, but represent a continuous district (just as is done in CA). Otherwise the presidency would be gerrymandered.
A straight-ahead popular vote is another alternative. It would mean that a candidate can't engineer an election by winning a few swing states, in which a relatively small number of swing voters in those states decide the election. On the other hand, voters might feel even more that their vote is just one in a million and makes little difference.
I don't necessarily oppose the current system. We could vote by congressional district, but in that case the federal government would need to certify that independent, non-partisan commissions have drawn districts in each state that are not gerrymandered, but represent a continuous district (just as is done in CA). Otherwise the presidency would be gerrymandered.
A straight-ahead popular vote is another alternative. It would mean that a candidate can't engineer an election by winning a few swing states, in which a relatively small number of swing voters in those states decide the election. On the other hand, voters might feel even more that their vote is just one in a million and makes little difference.
