A Philosophical Question Regarding the Electoral College
Here’s question for those who defend the electoral college on the grounds that it somehow preserves the republican character of the union by representing states alongside individuals:* if the state is a unit of representation that needs a special constitutional privilege (rather than solely focusing on individual citizens), what state would you need to move to get you to change your party affiliation/vote for the candidate opposite from the one you are currently likely to vote for?
After all, if states-qua-states need some sort of representation in the selection process, there must be some move in which you, as a voter, would go from Rep to Dem or Dem to Rep, right?
If not, then why does the election of the president need some sort of representational function for states?
In other words: it is all well and good to make an abstract argument for the importance of “states” in this process, but what is the concrete representational issue here?
*Never mind that this formulation really makes no sense, as it conflates a misunderstood version of republicanism with federalism (and really, a federalism with a confederal flavor because of the desire to makes states as units more important than the whole).