this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2024
718 points (98.1% liked)

politics

19120 readers
3044 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Huckledebuck@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Geography has nothing to do with it. If your state has more electoral votes per capita than mine, then my vote doesn't count as much as yours.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

And a coastal state with a huge population and no understanding of things people in a landlocked state 700 miles away shouldn't get to have more of a say in who controls the country. Without the electoral college, pretty much every president would come from one of the same 5 states every time, and the rest of the country would always get placed on the back burner, because "they never win elections".

Each state should have more of an equal say in who the president is.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Putting aside the absurdity of the idea that people's voices should be worth less if they live closer together... One of the most significant features of the electoral college is the existence of a handful of swing states. You don't want a situation where the most populous 5 states decide every election, so your solution is to take like 5 less populous states and have them decide every election. Genius.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

There's currently about 5 to 7 swing states because that's currently how all the other areas vote, and those change a lot more often than population by state. By your argument of doing away with the electoral college, California, new York, Texas, and Florida would decide the elections and no one running for office would care about doing anything in about 40 states.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Areas with larger populations would have more influence, because there are more people there to represent. That's how democracy works. It's not, I don't know, landocracy.

But every vote would be equal, so there would be more incentive than there is now to campaign across a wider cross section of people, including in less populated areas, because as it is now, the majority of those areas are in safe states where there is zero advantage whatsoever to a politician trying to win their votes.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You only think in short terms. You have a problem now, so you want it changed now. Later, it will turn into a bigger problem and you'll want it changed again, only it will be harder.

You think the answer to get democrats to win is to change a process to something that would currently benefit democrats. There's no reason to believe that it would continue to benefit democrats after the change, and it also doesn't get rid of the 2 party system, because while the demols are a bit better overall for most of the country, both parties are still bought and owned by the wealthy. The rich have been on a downward tax paying slide for the last 75 years, regardless of who was in office.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago

It wouldn't fix the system at all but it would still be a move in the right direction.

I have no idea how this could be called "thinking short term" or how getting rid of the electoral college would "turn into a bigger problem later." It's possible that at some point in the future, it could benefit Republicans, somehow, but only if a majority of the people were voting Republican. There is never going to be a situation where I would miss the electoral college, lol, get rid of it and it's gone forever and we can continue addressing other ways our elections are messed up.

[–] gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

And a coastal state with a huge population and no understanding of things people in a landlocked state 700 miles away shouldn't get to have more of a say in who controls the country

Agreed, that's why a 1-person, 1-vote system unlike the EC is a good idea!

Without the electoral college, pretty much every president would come from one of the same 5 states every time

Lol, what the FUCK gives you that idea? Why is it that EC supporters imagine states vote as a unified block if we end the EC? Are you literally incapable of understanding that different people in a state vote differently (an idiot), or are you purposefully pretending that you are (faking being an idiot, which is being a bigger idiot)

Each state should have more of an equal say in who the president is.

Exactly, end the electoral college

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You have a broken interpretation of things.

Agreed, that's why a 1-person, 1-vote system >unlike the EC is a good idea!

No. Coastal states are vastly more populated by a large margin. Texas, Florida, and California hold 1/3 of the entire population. A straight vote means that those will be the states that swing and win elections.

Lol, what the FUCK gives you that idea? Why is >it that EC supporters imagine states vote as a >unified block if we end the EC? Are you literally >incapable of understanding that different people >in a state vote differently (an idiot), or are you >purposefully pretending that you are (faking >being an idiot, which is being a bigger idiot)

Because it's a gimme that politicians from their home state do very well when running for a higher office. Democrats and Republicans will always nominate a candidate from a very populated state for this reason, because it's always free votes. Surely you aren't too dumb to have not noticed that?

Exactly, end the electoral college

Lol. No. I guess you are an idiot. The electoral college is literally in place to give states a more equal power in picking the president. That's literally the reason it exists.

[–] gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yawn, more garbage arguments

Keep arguing for the system of minority rule while claiming you're against exactly that, the rest of us will point and laugh at you as you deserve