> There's a very specific reason it [the electoral college] exists.
There are valid historical reasons for it, but it's a bit anti-democratic just the same. The rules which give more representation per capita to residents of less populated states were implemented to appease those states' governments and encourage them to join the union. However, it detracts somewhat from the ideal of "one person, one vote" when a voter in Wyoming (with three electors for 532k residents[1]) has the same influence as four voters in Texas (34 electors for 24.3M residents[1]).
On the other hand, the real issue has less do with how the President is elected and more to do with the excessive influence the President exercises over the government as a whole—particularly the Legislative and Judicial branches—and the ever-more-intrusive power and influence of the federal government in general.
> > Democracy, as a tool, has been made blunt by capitalist and military interests.
> Yes because it's made great by communists????
Special interests turning the power of government to their own ends is a problem whether those interests are communist, capitalist, or socialist in nature, or something else altogether. The law should be just and not merely a tool for those who own capital to oppress the rest of society—and of course the same goes for those who would seize others' capital for their own use, whether noble or mundane.
Unfortunately, the interests of capitalists (i.e., owners of capital) are not always aligned with capitalism—which requires upholding everyone's natural rights, whether they own capital or not—and often would be better described as plutocratic and authoritarian (rule by those with the most money). One may oppose "capitalist interests" while upholding the principles of capitalism; there is no conflict.
There are valid historical reasons for it, but it's a bit anti-democratic just the same. The rules which give more representation per capita to residents of less populated states were implemented to appease those states' governments and encourage them to join the union. However, it detracts somewhat from the ideal of "one person, one vote" when a voter in Wyoming (with three electors for 532k residents[1]) has the same influence as four voters in Texas (34 electors for 24.3M residents[1]).
On the other hand, the real issue has less do with how the President is elected and more to do with the excessive influence the President exercises over the government as a whole—particularly the Legislative and Judicial branches—and the ever-more-intrusive power and influence of the federal government in general.
> > Democracy, as a tool, has been made blunt by capitalist and military interests.
> Yes because it's made great by communists????
Special interests turning the power of government to their own ends is a problem whether those interests are communist, capitalist, or socialist in nature, or something else altogether. The law should be just and not merely a tool for those who own capital to oppress the rest of society—and of course the same goes for those who would seize others' capital for their own use, whether noble or mundane.
Unfortunately, the interests of capitalists (i.e., owners of capital) are not always aligned with capitalism—which requires upholding everyone's natural rights, whether they own capital or not—and often would be better described as plutocratic and authoritarian (rule by those with the most money). One may oppose "capitalist interests" while upholding the principles of capitalism; there is no conflict.
[1] https://www.fairvote.org/population_vs_electoral_votes