Electoral College in each state?

[Vepres]

It's absolutely a legitimate question for electoral college supporters? Why don't we elect the Governor of Illinois with a county based electoral college system? It's not fair that Chicago have that much influence!

I think that a county with 500 farmers should at least be entitled to the same representation that a Chicago suburb with 50,000 gets.

States have (in theory) more power than the federal government, and they created it. Counties have less power than states and the states created them, not the other way around. The core argument in favor of the EC is that states should have more power than the federal government, and thus should control the executive branch (which is still very proportional, given that the EC does use house seats too).

The Council of ministers in the EU is based on similar principles. Surely you don't oppose that (though as a German resident, you may be biased).

[Vepres]

The Council of ministers in the EU is based on similar principles. Surely you don't oppose that (though as a German resident, you may be biased).

Yes, I strongly oppose the way the Council of Ministers is "elected".

All your arguments revolve around an "appeal to proportional representation" fallacy. Good government is not necessarily 100% representative.

[Vepres]

No, I'm not a fan of proportional representation at all in reality (except STV based systems like in Atlasia).

My ideal electoral system would be IRV in single member districts. But the thing is that all districts have a similar amount of people.

I'm not advocating proportionality, but rather equality.

The Council of ministers in the EU is based on similar principles. Surely you don't oppose that (though as a German resident, you may be biased).

Yes, I strongly oppose the way the Council of Ministers is "elected".

All your arguments revolve around an "appeal to 100% equal proportional representation" fallacy. Good government is not necessarily 100% representative.

[Vepres]

Good government need not necessarily be 100% representative, just as 100% representative government need not be good.

But being 100% representative doesn't make government any worse either. Isn't this a debate on the fairness of electoral systems? Wouldn't you prefer to treat every citizen equally?

They are. They each equally influence which candidate their state's electors go to.

Now, I think that every citizen being treated equally is all fine and good, but there must be a check on rampant tyranny of the majority. Now, you could say that we have tyranny of the minority in the Senate and electoral college. However, remember that the US House, Governors, State legislatures, County governments, city governments, townships in the NE, are all "fair". These institutions affect my life far more than the two "unfair" ones. Even the US House, I would argue, is more powerful because legislation almost always starts there, thus shaping the debate (which carries over to the Senate).

I don't care that Wyoming has proportionately more power than Colorado in the Senate and electoral college because, in the end, they still are far less significant to the federal government than Colorado. Places like Chicago get far more attention than Colorado despite the Senate and electoral college.

[Vepres]

Look at it this way....500,000 people in Wyoming send 2 senators to the Senate that can block EVERYTHING through filibustering if the Senate numbers are right.

This is a fallacious argument, as at least 38 other senators must agree with them.

[Vepres]

Now, I think that every citizen being treated equally is all fine and good, but there must be a check on rampant tyranny of the majority.

The way to do that is by requiring a supermajority, not by giving some people more voting power.

No, it's hard enough getting majority of large egos to agree