Dem Opposition to the Electoral College Reveals a Distaste for Real Democracy
Updated: Jan 9, 2019
It makes sense. The Democratic Party, even though it recently took the House and really does constitute a solid 1/3 to 2/5 of the electorate, is fundamentally a regional party in the 21st Century.
The Democrats do well in urban centers, in California, and in the Northeast. Though the geography is limited, these areas are highly populated. As such some Dems see the Electoral College, which was instituted to keep states like California and New York from dominating presidential elections, as unfair to them. Why should people in Wyoming, sparsely populated, gun toting, libertarianish, land owning, live and let live Wyoming get to weigh in on the president in any significant way? They don't even have Grub Hub there. Those people are relatively few. No, the people packed on top of one another in Brooklyn, San Francisco, and Chicago should be calling all the shots.
But that really is ridiculous. Urban nodes, though they are population centers do not reflect the general nature of the country, and indeed would be completely dysfunctional if it were not for the less populated areas that surround them. If things went nuts Iowa, Kentucky, upstate New York and the eastern 2/3 of Oregon would be fine. The cities however are in a much more tenuous position. As such this reality has to be acknowledged and one of the ways this situation is dealt with politically is the Electoral College.
The electoral college makes it harder to win by doing what Clinton did during the 2016 campaign: focus on a thin sliver of rich Hollywood and business elites, coupled with urban ethnics. It's true that those two groups can offer a lot of votes and a lot of campaign dollars. But they also tend to be limited to very specific regions, states, and metro areas.
The groups Clinton ignored: the suburban middle class and working class make up a much larger, more geographically diverse coalition. This can be seen in the fact that Trump won such diverse states as Alabama, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
...But 50 separate presidential elections (plus DC and the territories) is not somehow less democratic than holding one big national election. It's simply a democratic method designed to ensure more buy in from a larger range of voters, not less.