Originally Posted by
germanaviator
Do you really believe all that? Really? Whatever happened to "one person, one vote"? .Shouldn't every vote carry the same weight?
Do you consider it acceptable that the vote of a citizen living on the coast is worth less than that of a citizen living elsewhere?
Or in other words: You are saying some people's votes carry more weight depending on where they live and that is ok?
Have you considered that the two party system is not necessarily desirable. That having multiple parties which form coalitions, as is the case in most European democracies, can be beneficial and desirable.
I think I can see why the EC was established in the U.S. constitution at the time but I don't think it is still the best system for the country.
I think it is extremely undemocratic and unjust when a candidate who did not win the popular vote wins the Presidency. And that's regardless of which candidate may benefit at any given election.
Oh, and of course th U.S. are a democracy, contrary to what you stated. Just not a direct democracy. Most democratic countries aren't either, by the way.
The representative republican system and the electoral college were established so that the wealthy northeast could not dominate the policy in the rest of the country. It now insures that the wealthy coasts can't dominate the policy in the rest of the country. We have more than two parties but the main two are successful in drowning out the others. As pointed out by Ronaldo, when a candidate speaks to a large majority of the country's values that candidate can win both the coasts and the middle we just haven't been blessed with a candidate like that for quite some time.
Its not a perfect system but it is the one we have.