Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

defusted t1_j2ivwle wrote

Get rid of the electoral college, get rid of voting districts, make it majority rules. Except that will never happen because no Republican would ever hold office ever again.

29

cuppa_tea_4_me t1_j2m7mba wrote

Electoral college is genius and we are a representative democracy. Electoral college prevents two cities from making every decision for the rest of the state.

0

srsbsnsman t1_j2n79cx wrote

Its not two cities making decisions, its every person having an equal say. You shouldn't get extra votes just because you opted to live in the middle of nowhere.

2

cuppa_tea_4_me t1_j2na6c1 wrote

Awh. Why should one tiny area of the state get to make decisions for the entire jigsaw area? The population of Philly and Pittsburgh combined is 2 million. The population of PA is 12.5 million. I just cannot do the work for you. Look it up. We are not and never will be a direct democracy. Google great compromise.

−3

srsbsnsman t1_j2nbj0x wrote

>The population of Philly and Pittsburgh combined is 2 million. The population of PA is 12.5 million

Okay, then they wouldn't be able to control the entire state. So what are we talking about?

And remind me what seats in PA's government are even chosen by an electoral college again?

3

cuppa_tea_4_me t1_j2ncjuf wrote

No. Do your own research. Your education is lacking.

−2

srsbsnsman t1_j2ndlrs wrote

The answer is that PA doesn't use an electoral college for internal election, so your whole point is irrelevant.

Reflect on the fact that you're so eager to tell people to educate themselves without even understanding the topic yourself.

3

pocketbookashtray t1_j2nnp67 wrote

The problem with the Electoral college is that states like California have too much power. Electoral votes should be capped at no more than 20 per state.

−1

defusted t1_j2nqbmz wrote

California is a bigger state and has more people than a place like Virginia, so all of those people in California should just be overruled because Virginia says so? Pennsylvania has more power than either of those states because it's just the right population, should either of those states have less of a say in what happens? Majority rules is at least fair.

2

pocketbookashtray t1_j2xb3v4 wrote

Alaska is three times the size of California yet California gets 18 times the votes. Sorry that you don’t think the jams and environment is important. Encouraging states to grow population is bizarre.

0

defusted t1_j2xirzw wrote

Maybe if you had bothered to read at all you'd know that I don't care how big the state is geographically, California probably has 18 times the population of Alaska and therefore should have more say.

1

HugeRaspberry t1_j2jfylc wrote

The electoral college actually works very well at doing just what it was designed to do. Balance power between states and make sure that each state has a proportional representation in selecting a president

What’s broke is the two party system that decides the best path to the magic number. The two party system ensures that some states are never going to matter in a presidential election because they don’t have enough votes to make a difference

−6

defusted t1_j2jhypt wrote

The electoral college is horse shit. It was created so bigger states with far fewer people like Virginia wouldn't get over ruled by smaller states like new York even though new York has way more people. We should be doing this by majority rules. If we actually went by the will of majority of people in this country then the last Republican presidents term would have ended 30 years ago.

3

Ajaws24142822 t1_j2ka0le wrote

Even as a democrat voter, majority rules is a terrible fucking idea and a direct democracy is a horrible idea. The people who founded the US set up the electoral college specifically as a check to ensure that certain states didn’t control the elections of the entire country. What affects the 49% is as important as what affects the 51%, an avoidance of the tyranny of the majority is important and they specifically designed our electoral process to ensure that everyone is represented.

The electoral college being in place was initially what allowed minorities to have an actual voice in the United States when it came to voting. It meant that majority white regions of the country couldn’t completely be dwarfed by larger white populations, the same generally goes for districting states rather than just having two representatives and two senators.

We added more representatives to the states to represent smaller populations. Someone is always gonna lose an election, but our entire electoral process ensures that everyone’s voice is ultimately heard.

If we go majority rules, than 51% of the country basically controls the federal government and the presidency and there is no room for the other 49% to hold any level of power.

The liberals of the time knew majority rules was a really terrible fucking idea for the ENTIRE US and it remains a really terrible fucking idea. Small scale? Sure it works for districts and even states, but on a federal level without the electoral college a massive population of the US wouldn’t even try to vote because it would be pointless.

It’s a really good way to turn us into a one-party state, and even if that party is my party I don’t like that at all.

3

DamonRunnon t1_j2l751q wrote

But "proportional" representation isn't really "proportional" in this country.

3

defusted t1_j2kdjx2 wrote

And yet certain states DO control the elections of the entire county. It's almost like the system doesn't work at all.

1

Ajaws24142822 t1_j2kf4e6 wrote

lol the system literally does work and people who think it doesn’t are coping. Primarily, all those dumbfucks who assaulted the capital building when they didn’t get a result they liked. Idk if you noticed but it’s working, more often than not our systems work.

PA has a good representative and a good governor, the people spoke. Same goes with the presidency. The people wanted something different, it didn’t work out, they brought Brandon in.

The only time our system didn’t work was when Woodrow Wilson was elected, because two candidates 60% of the country liked split that vote in half and Wilson won with less than 50% of both the popular and electoral college.

And he was the worst president we have ever had, and it’s not close.

−1

BorisTheMansplainer t1_j2k68mh wrote

The Senate does this. And the house does, as well, if you compare reps per capita between California and Wyoming, for example. Why do rural states need even more voting power in the executive branch, as well?

3

GiddyUp18 t1_j2izrm7 wrote

Democrats are all for defending the interests of minorities, except when those minorities are political.

Also, the electoral college is only for the presidency, so that wouldn’t result in no Republican ever holding office again. Not sure what you mean by “get rid of voting districts.” The entire point of our governmental system is representation. Getting rid of voting districts would mean people in Philly voting for politicians that would represent Altoona, places that have distinctly different ideologies. That doesn’t seem very Democratic to me. It seems to me that, in a state that’s as close to 50-50 politically as any other state in the country, you want a political party with a narrow margin to rule over everyone. Why don’t you just make it easier and get the democrats to create one ring to rule them all in the dumpster fires of Philadelphia?

−17

tyrael459 t1_j2joe61 wrote

I like most of your post, but you lost me when you settled for the usual Philly shit talk. As with any massive city, there are incredibly different experiences and areas, and people who are dumb enough (or think their audience is dumb enough) to water it down to a single instance of bullshit lose their credibility in my eyes.

I also have no clue what you mean by “when those minorities are political,” but I would love to know.

8

GiddyUp18 t1_j2jqto3 wrote

What I meant by that statement is that sometimes Democrats are guilty of caring about the interests of minorities, except when those minorities are white, Christian, hillbillies.

−14

GaviFromThePod t1_j2ksyyn wrote

I support the rights of political minorities. Just not their right to rule and push through unpopular policies that fuck over most of the people. Trying to make the government less representative of the will of the voters is the definition of corruption.

7

susinpgh t1_j2k880v wrote

I hear this argument for the way things are apportioned all the time from republicans and how it's unfair for rural districts. Instead, we are dealing with a situation where legislation is being past that is against the will of the majority of voters. That isn't fair either. When this system was first proposed, the majority of the population were living in rural areas. It was never about making sure that the minority had a fair say in legislation or elections. It was always about making sure that the rural communities held sway over city dwellers.

1

cuppa_tea_4_me t1_j2m7rfv wrote

And that is exactly why we have an electoral college. Most of the state is rural. Why should two cities decide everything? They don’t know nor do they care what is happening in the rest of the state.

2

susinpgh t1_j2n72dj wrote

Why should the minority decide everything? If that's not fair to Rural communities, then it's not fair to population centers.

1

cuppa_tea_4_me t1_j2n8urq wrote

That’s why every county should only get one single vote. Everyone in Philly has the same interest. They don’t each get a vote. We aren’t a direct democracy. What if Philly runs out of water. And they decide to take it from the poconos and pipe it in. Ok let’s put it to a vote. Well there are more people in Philly so we are just going to take the water.

This is why we have a bicameral Congress. One house based on population and one given a set equal amount of votes.

Learn your history.

1

susinpgh t1_j2ncwji wrote

That is absolutist; we're already living this when the counties in the rural areas are dictating gun safety laws that are detrimental to the cities, and also undermining womens rights, setting minimum wage and not allowing additional funding for public transportation.

I understand history enough to know that the current system is inequitable, and your solution of a vote per county is ludicrous.

2

cuppa_tea_4_me t1_j2nd6eh wrote

As is yours. Why on earth would my county subsidized your public transportation?

And this is why we have a bicameral Congress.

Thank you for illustrating the point so well.

1

susinpgh t1_j2neb4t wrote

Then why should the majority subsidize your roads? After all, we don't live in your county. That is completely asinine.

2

IrrumaboMalum t1_j2pv3aq wrote

It sounds to me like you want the same thing he wants, you just want it the OTHER way.

You don't want the rural parts of the state dictating how the cities live. That is fair and understandable.

But you seem to be okay with the idea of the cities dictating how the rural part of the state live. That is not fair and is rather hypocritical.

There is no easy solution to this situation.

1

defusted t1_j2j1rs3 wrote

I'm hung over so I'm just gonna call you an idiot and be done with it.

−3

HornetFN t1_j2jg91p wrote

I’ll give you an answer. Because everybody in this sub are left wing idiots that can’t develop a full thought on their own.

−11