6 ms·

You should be careful about the word "small" here. What you mean is least populous, but geographically, they are large. Thus, the question is: Do you want the

You should be careful about the word "small" here. What you mean is least populous, but geographically, they are large. Thus, the question is: Do you want the majority of the USA geography being controlled by the will of people least knowledgeable about it? If you eliminate the electoral college you give political control of resources to those who have absolutely NO physical control of those resources and yet still suffer the impact of their environmental influence. What I mean is, people in California, Texas, and New York would push all the bad things to the rural states and take all the good parts, leaving those who live in the rural areas to feel the full brunt of those decisions. Take Louisiana as an example. It's been decimated by everyone who doesn't live there.

yks 7y ago
Currently it seems that rural states push all the bad things on themselves, e.g. climate change and other environmental destruction, so how much worse can it be for them?
- parineum 7y ago
  The non-rural states are responsible for more environmental damage but they export it to other states/countries.
0xB31B1B 7y ago
To be fair, the primary cause of the decimation of Louisiana is it’s state government. I would also add that the resources of the country belong to all of us, not just those who live in close proximity (aka the same state).
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- vollmond 7y ago
  Does this apply to other borders? Do the resources of Canada or Iraq belong to "all of us"? Or just internal US resources?
hyperpape 7y ago
Two things: 1. I’m gonna take a hard line that people deserve a vote, dirt doesn’t. 2. Louisiana is the 25th most populous state and I think 25th densest. So, I’m not sure the electoral college is protecting those less dense states’ environments. As the sibling points out, sometimes coastal liberals want environmental protection, while natives want to exploit the environment for profit.
- J5892 7y ago
  In the case of Louisiana, we (natives) have been screaming for environmental protections for decades, because erosion has been eating away at our state. Meanwhile, our state government seems more concerned with gutting education wherever possible and doing everything it can to destroy New Orleans' economy.
  - scottmcf 7y ago
    The recent electoral record in Louisiana doesn't exactly make it seem that high a priority for them.
- bendbro 7y ago
  And if Louisiana's federal desires are consistently decided by more populous states, what is left that motivates Louisiana to remain a member of the United States?
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    I don't understand the premise of the question. Why would Louisiana expect to be able to dictate federal policies against the wishes of other states?
    - bendbro 7y ago
      They would expect other states to not be able to dictate things against them, not necessarily them against other states. This is looking increasingly likely as political opinion on immigration, gun control, abortion, etc continues to divide further left and right.
J5892 7y ago
In what way has Louisiana been decimated?
- anon1m0us 7y ago
  Gulf of Mexico disasters. Erosion. Pollution. Hurricanes.
jdavis703 7y ago
Weighting "resources" is not a good thing. In the past it's been used to justify some of the most horrific policies in the U.S. The U.S. constitution counted slaves at 60% of a person. Some of the arguments for the three fifths compromise were that slaveholders didn't want people who weren't "knowledgable" about slaveholding to be meddling in slaveholder's business. This is essentially one of the causes that sparked the Civil War. I don't understand why Americans are so against becoming a full democracy. It's not like the current system benefits anyone. Congress, presidents and our courts are dysfunctional. The government is becoming the laughingstock of the world. At least in a democracy there's more chances of unified rule instead of 6 years of gridlock followed by 2-years of whiplash changes.
- anon1m0us 7y ago
  All wars throughout all of history have been about resources. In the end, resources are all that matter. The civil war was about resources as well. It was the slaves that helped extract those resources from the land. It wasn't about slavery, it was about what they used the slaves to get. This is really a red state vs blue state debate, but even on a county by county level, the majority of the counties of California, Oregon and Washington state are red. Those states' votes are determined by a handful of counties around a few urban centers. The rest of the counties' interests are more closely aligned with the red states. And thus, the electoral college gives those red counties a voice that's ignored in their own states.
  - FireBeyond 7y ago
    > And thus, the electoral college gives those red counties a voice that's ignored in their own states. And in many cases gives them more of a voice. There's an irony that the EC more accurately represents votes per acre/square mile than per constituent, and (one of) the reasons for the move to the US was to get away from tyrannical land/owners.
- madengr 7y ago
  Gridlock is good. The last thing I want is control by one party.
danek 7y ago
I’m not following your example. You clarified in another comment that Louisiana is environmentally decimated due to the actions or votes of the blue states. However Louisiana typically goes hard red, and the GOP is very much opposed to environmental protections. Also I’m not sure what you mean by them pushing all the bad stuff to Louisiana and what that has to do with presidential elections (aside from that the president sets EPA policy, but again, Louisiana voted for trump so I don’t get it)
sagichmal 7y ago
> Do you want the majority of the USA geography being controlled by the will of people least knowledgeable about it? Land doesn't vote.
dclowd9901 7y ago
> Do you want the majority of the USA geography being controlled by the will of people least knowledgeable about it? Your question presumes quite a lot. I'll start with "what makes you think people who don't live in Wyoming are incapable of understanding Wyoming?"
yongjik 7y ago
> Do you want the majority of the USA geography being controlled by the will of people least knowledgeable about it? Well, if you want to propose a system where Alaska (area 570,640.95 sq mi) gets the same representation as Rhode Island, Delaware, Connecticut, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Hawaii, Maryland, West Virginia, South Carolina, Maine, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama combined (area ~525,000 sq mi), ...then I'm all ears... * Please don't tell me "But Alaska has so few people!"
pms 7y ago
> Do you want the majority of the USA geography being controlled by the will of people least knowledgeable about it? So you prefer that the majority of the USA population is being controlled by the will of people least knowledgeable about the issues faced by the most populous and developed regions of the USA?

yks 7y ago

Currently it seems that rural states push all the bad things on themselves, e.g. climate change and other environmental destruction, so how much worse can it be for them?

parineum 7y ago
The non-rural states are responsible for more environmental damage but they export it to other states/countries.

0xB31B1B 7y ago

To be fair, the primary cause of the decimation of Louisiana is it’s state government. I would also add that the resources of the country belong to all of us, not just those who live in close proximity (aka the same state).

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
vollmond 7y ago
Does this apply to other borders? Do the resources of Canada or Iraq belong to "all of us"? Or just internal US resources?

hyperpape 7y ago

Two things: 1. I’m gonna take a hard line that people deserve a vote, dirt doesn’t. 2. Louisiana is the 25th most populous state and I think 25th densest. So, I’m not sure the electoral college is protecting those less dense states’ environments. As the sibling points out, sometimes coastal liberals want environmental protection, while natives want to exploit the environment for profit.

J5892 7y ago
In the case of Louisiana, we (natives) have been screaming for environmental protections for decades, because erosion has been eating away at our state. Meanwhile, our state government seems more concerned with gutting education wherever possible and doing everything it can to destroy New Orleans' economy.
- scottmcf 7y ago
  The recent electoral record in Louisiana doesn't exactly make it seem that high a priority for them.
bendbro 7y ago
And if Louisiana's federal desires are consistently decided by more populous states, what is left that motivates Louisiana to remain a member of the United States?
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  I don't understand the premise of the question. Why would Louisiana expect to be able to dictate federal policies against the wishes of other states?
  - bendbro 7y ago
    They would expect other states to not be able to dictate things against them, not necessarily them against other states. This is looking increasingly likely as political opinion on immigration, gun control, abortion, etc continues to divide further left and right.

J5892 7y ago

In what way has Louisiana been decimated?

anon1m0us 7y ago
Gulf of Mexico disasters. Erosion. Pollution. Hurricanes.

jdavis703 7y ago

Weighting "resources" is not a good thing. In the past it's been used to justify some of the most horrific policies in the U.S. The U.S. constitution counted slaves at 60% of a person. Some of the arguments for the three fifths compromise were that slaveholders didn't want people who weren't "knowledgable" about slaveholding to be meddling in slaveholder's business. This is essentially one of the causes that sparked the Civil War. I don't understand why Americans are so against becoming a full democracy. It's not like the current system benefits anyone. Congress, presidents and our courts are dysfunctional. The government is becoming the laughingstock of the world. At least in a democracy there's more chances of unified rule instead of 6 years of gridlock followed by 2-years of whiplash changes.

anon1m0us 7y ago
All wars throughout all of history have been about resources. In the end, resources are all that matter. The civil war was about resources as well. It was the slaves that helped extract those resources from the land. It wasn't about slavery, it was about what they used the slaves to get. This is really a red state vs blue state debate, but even on a county by county level, the majority of the counties of California, Oregon and Washington state are red. Those states' votes are determined by a handful of counties around a few urban centers. The rest of the counties' interests are more closely aligned with the red states. And thus, the electoral college gives those red counties a voice that's ignored in their own states.
- FireBeyond 7y ago
  > And thus, the electoral college gives those red counties a voice that's ignored in their own states. And in many cases gives them more of a voice. There's an irony that the EC more accurately represents votes per acre/square mile than per constituent, and (one of) the reasons for the move to the US was to get away from tyrannical land/owners.
madengr 7y ago
Gridlock is good. The last thing I want is control by one party.

danek 7y ago

I’m not following your example. You clarified in another comment that Louisiana is environmentally decimated due to the actions or votes of the blue states. However Louisiana typically goes hard red, and the GOP is very much opposed to environmental protections. Also I’m not sure what you mean by them pushing all the bad stuff to Louisiana and what that has to do with presidential elections (aside from that the president sets EPA policy, but again, Louisiana voted for trump so I don’t get it)

sagichmal 7y ago

> Do you want the majority of the USA geography being controlled by the will of people least knowledgeable about it? Land doesn't vote.

dclowd9901 7y ago

> Do you want the majority of the USA geography being controlled by the will of people least knowledgeable about it? Your question presumes quite a lot. I'll start with "what makes you think people who don't live in Wyoming are incapable of understanding Wyoming?"

yongjik 7y ago

> Do you want the majority of the USA geography being controlled by the will of people least knowledgeable about it? Well, if you want to propose a system where Alaska (area 570,640.95 sq mi) gets the same representation as Rhode Island, Delaware, Connecticut, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Hawaii, Maryland, West Virginia, South Carolina, Maine, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama combined (area ~525,000 sq mi), ...then I'm all ears... * Please don't tell me "But Alaska has so few people!"

pms 7y ago

> Do you want the majority of the USA geography being controlled by the will of people least knowledgeable about it? So you prefer that the majority of the USA population is being controlled by the will of people least knowledgeable about the issues faced by the most populous and developed regions of the USA?