Personal tools

Argument: The electoral college forces candidates to campaign to the entire country

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Parent debate

Supporting evidence

  • "The Case for the Electoral College". New York Times (opinion). December 19, 2000 - "The Electoral College was first and foremost a compact among states, large and small, designed to ensure that one state or one region did not dominate the others. As Charles Fried noted in a recent Op-Ed piece, it was and is one of those safeguards of a balanced federalism -- much like the allocation of two senators to each state, regardless of size. And by offering the promise that even the smallest states could tip the balance in close elections, the system made it impossible to ignore them. This, in turn, required presidential candidates to build alliances across ideological and geographical lines.
It is true, as the system's critics suggest, that the rise of mass communications and modern transportation has knit the country together in ways unforeseen by the founders. But that does not mean that we are one homogeneous, undifferentiated mass, at least not yet. There are still definably Midwestern interests, or Northwestern interests, as opposed to, say, Eastern interests. There are still definably rural interests, just as there are urban interests." (The electoral college is still an important way to force candidates to appeal to different groups across the country).

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits