I still don't understand arguments like those centered around "quarantining electoral disputes". We have actual evidence to the contrary: direct election of US Senators.
In California, as according to http://essaytyper.pro/, there are agrarian counties, tech-centered counties, urbane areas, rural areas, forested areas, valleys and fields, and many million of voters. But somehow, direct election of a US Senator happens every few years with nary a peep about the problems of "big cities deciding everything" or "if it's close, we'll have to dispute every precinct". If it's close, some recounts are done, and it's not a big deal. It takes another week or so, and then they're done.
The arguments against the popular vote should apply equally well to Senatorial elections - but we've had those for a century without noticeable problems, so we have direct evidence that seems to show it would work with the Presidency as well. Is my logic flawed? In what way would Presidential elections differ? Mere scale?
This is idle-talk forum. Write your greeting here. Feel free to discuss here for anything.
1 post • Page 1 of 1