I will never get the argument that it gives more power to the people of LA or NYC. Each vote will count for one, whether they live in the desert or in Manhattan. How does that give more power to someone over someone else?
I would like to see the EC abolished so we can get more third party candidates, but this is what some people fear, that LA and NY may get more clout than middle America.
Okay, that fear is really dumb and thoughtless. I will provide a medium-brain argument because I am sure other people have posted standard galaxy-brain arguments to why this is dumb. NYC makes up less than 50% of New York State and LA makes up only around 10% of California's population. If NYC and LA were really so politically different from the rest of their respective states (let alone the rest of the country) they could easily be overruled by the remainder of their respective states. So obviously they wouldn't exert undue influence over the rest of the
Of course, that argument oversimplifies the relationship between geography and voting patterns. But so do all arguments in favor of the electoral college!Note that it's pretty laughable at face value that LA/NYC and their metro areas can be treated as singular in their political identity just like it is to assert that the rest of their states (or, the "heartland" or whatever people who want to feign interests in rural areas want to call it) are singular in their identities.
There is no intellectually rigorous argument in favor of keeping the EC. I really think that the entirety of arguments made online for the EC are made by people who thought about something for long enough to type it out but not for much longer.
It is a Democratic power grab, because a national popular vote would require the Federalization of election/voting procedures, remove state control over the franchise, and preclude state courts from having the ability to fairly resolve electoral disputes.
The Founders’ wise intention in establishing the electoral college was to build a metaphysical “wall” around each state so election procedures/controversies could have zero impact beyond the affected state. A national popular vote nessecarily demolishes this wall
1. That most certainly was not the Founders's intention. Every feature of government doesn't need some weird mythologizing around its original purpose.
2. By the same token that nationalizing voting procedures would be a
de facto Democratic power grab, allowing state governments (which tend to be overrepresented by Republicans) to dictate how a state performs its elections is a
de facto Republican power grab. Federalism isn't inherently good or bad. Policies that are implemented are good and bad and giving states the power to, e.g., disenfranchise felons, or enact other corrosive policies in the name of federalism is abusive and ideologically disingenuous.
