4 ms·

> and with it the majority of voters get overridden because of those flyover states. I don't like this argument because you are arguing for exactly the opposite

> and with it the majority of voters get overridden because of those flyover states. I don't like this argument because you are arguing for exactly the opposite as the better way. Urban voters have the benefit of living in a densely populated area. There's something to be said for safety in numbers. > Personally I think a popular vote would just result in more moderate policies because you need to at least split the cities, and then the rural areas are still valuable to put you over the top. Campaigns would visit fewer areas than they do now. Voter fraud could become more easier to commit. Swing states would disappear. Popular voting sounds great until you realize those who live away from larger voting blocs would get the short end of the stick.

aanm1988 10y ago
> Voter fraud could become more easier to commit Why? > Swing states would disappear. Thank fucking god for that.
- grandalf 10y ago
  > Thank fucking god for that. Do you want swing states to no longer have votes that matter? Or do you wish that the kinds of issues that result in swing states would no longer exist?
  - aanm1988 10y ago
    > Do you want swing states to no longer have votes that matter I don't want them to be the only ones that end up mattering.
    - grandalf 10y ago
      > the only ones that end up mattering Even in a popular vote system there would still be small issues that ended up mattering (seemingly too much) they would just not be as likely to be from geographical areas with low populations. There are issues with broad support, and other issues with narrow support. In order to win, politicians must cater to both. The narrow, tie-breaker issues in a popular vote system would also (quite likely be just as stupid as they are today).