Aquarian wrote:Either way, the national directly democratic voting process would reflect the national popular will of the people. It would also be a step in the right direction in providing an opportunity for third parties to emerge in a more fair setting. Right now, the Electoral College is always faithful to the two-party system. Big and small states have an equal opportunity to fight for their candidates on equal ground- each individual vote would count for what it is- an individual vote.
Except that a State with a lower population would therefore have a weaker voice come election time...which is exactly why the States fought for the setup to be how it is now before they would agree to the Union as it stands.
In a direct 1-1 vote, you would never ever ever see a national candidate visit states like Wyoming or Montana, so therefore the voices of those people would be silenced when it comes to National debate. Why is Iowa so important at the beginning of primaries? Not because of it's super massive population.
Doing away with this system would simply weaken the individual States rights, and deteriorate the system even more towards a direct federal government as opposed to the limited federal government we are supposed to have now.