4 ms·

That "structural favouritism towards less populated areas" is a very old design feature of American democracy. Without it, everywhere but a small band in each c

by makomk 10y ago

That "structural favouritism towards less populated areas" is a very old design feature of American democracy. Without it, everywhere but a small band in each coast would become politically irrelevant, much like it's already ignored by the media.

M_Grey 10y ago
That sounds awful, until you realize just how many people live in those "small bands".
- jmaygarden 10y ago
  "When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe." Thomas Jefferson
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    Yeah, he also owned slaves, and fucked them. It's not as though everything that came out of his mouth was gospel truth.
majormajor 10y ago
Nonsense. Clinton's projected by the NY Times to win the popular vote by 1.2% right now. That's hardly a huge mandate for a singular agenda. It's a margin that would still be at massive risk if people continued ignoring those non-coastal populations feeling economically left behind. Instead, despite that 1.2% lead for the Democratic presidential candidate, that party will be the minority party in every branch of government? That's a better, fairer system? Structurally separating everyone into groups drifting further and further apart for everyone is a recipe for a system that can't get much useful stuff done. (And the media ate up the Trump campaign despite it being incredibly unappealing to those small coastal bands. Nobody build an unassailable media monopoly by ignoring something like 48% of the population.)
- nullc 10y ago
  She campaigned for the electoral vote, not for the popular vote. You can't be sure that if, instead, the popular vote were used that she would have taken a different platform that was soundly rejected by most states but secured her a much larger popular vote margin.
- masonic 10y ago
  "Clinton's projected by the NY Times to win the popular vote by 1.2% right now." So much for any of their projections. The actual popular vote difference is 202,340 -- less than 0.17% of votes cast.

by makomk 10y ago

M_Grey 10y ago

That sounds awful, until you realize just how many people live in those "small bands".

jmaygarden 10y ago
"When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe." Thomas Jefferson
- M_Grey 10y ago
  Yeah, he also owned slaves, and fucked them. It's not as though everything that came out of his mouth was gospel truth.

majormajor 10y ago

Nonsense. Clinton's projected by the NY Times to win the popular vote by 1.2% right now. That's hardly a huge mandate for a singular agenda. It's a margin that would still be at massive risk if people continued ignoring those non-coastal populations feeling economically left behind. Instead, despite that 1.2% lead for the Democratic presidential candidate, that party will be the minority party in every branch of government? That's a better, fairer system? Structurally separating everyone into groups drifting further and further apart for everyone is a recipe for a system that can't get much useful stuff done. (And the media ate up the Trump campaign despite it being incredibly unappealing to those small coastal bands. Nobody build an unassailable media monopoly by ignoring something like 48% of the population.)

nullc 10y ago
She campaigned for the electoral vote, not for the popular vote. You can't be sure that if, instead, the popular vote were used that she would have taken a different platform that was soundly rejected by most states but secured her a much larger popular vote margin.
masonic 10y ago
"Clinton's projected by the NY Times to win the popular vote by 1.2% right now." So much for any of their projections. The actual popular vote difference is 202,340 -- less than 0.17% of votes cast.