xChickenhawk
Rural areas and small states have always been protected in our system, and it's broadly consistent with the aim of protecting (political and numerical) minorities that have been with us since the founding of tne country. You might as well allocate Senate seats based on population as eliminate the EC.
As I said in the other thread, the electoral college does not protect rural areas. Most rural areas, such as upstate New York, downstate Illinois, or Oklahoma, it renders even more irrelevant.
Nor does the electoral college protect political or numerical minorities -- the filibuster does. The electoral college does not.
The Senate would be nicer if it was allocated based on population.
Upstate NY and Downstate IL, are the exceptions not the rule. Don't know how Oklahoma is rendered "irrelevant" considering it's almost completely rural and their vote reflects that. States which are mostly rural typically vote accordingly. IL and NY aren't mostly rural states, they are mostly urban.
Sorta confused about why you think the filibuster is the only thing we should have to protect political minorities? The filibuster is incredibly weak and has already been highly eroded. There needs to be protections for the minorities in all branches of government. The amount of times the PV winner =/= EV winner is already negligible. Usually when the PV winner loses the EV it's evidence of a regional party.
Also lol at your opinion on the Senate. Might as well abolish the Senate at that point lol.
