I completely agree with this view. He talks about how the Electoral College forces candidates to tend to the issues of the citizens in swing states over issues of citizens elsewhere. Candidates in presidential elections have spent too much time and money to not foremost address the swing states issues. They have entered the election to win and if they don't convince the swing states then they are drastically cutting their chances for success. Also, he states that the 2 vote minimum to each state in the Electoral College means that smaller states get more votes per capita.
Shouldn't these elections be a equal representation of the citizens wants and needs? Looks like if you come from a small swing state, you're in good shape. But what does that mean for the rest of the population? That your votes and issues are just not as important?
He also addresses the issue that 3rd party candidates will never get a shot with the Electoral College around. If these candidates cant win close to a majority in any given state, the Electoral College gives them no recognition. The people who vote for these candidates are even discouraged from voting because they know the 3rd party will never prevail. This makes it hard to get a good read on whether or not a 3rd party candidate would have stood a chance or not without the Electoral College.
The is by far an issue of equality and it is putting a damper on what candidates focus on for the good of winning the election. I feel that every american deserves a fair vote and their issues should be addressed with the same seriousness. Without equality, you don't represent what America stands for.
