3 ms·

Or even simpler, we could have a one person, one vote system. It would have worked in 2016 and 2000. When you have a system where the less popular candidate win

by mnm1 7y ago

Or even simpler, we could have a one person, one vote system. It would have worked in 2016 and 2000. When you have a system where the less popular candidate wins regularly, is it any wonder people are disillusioned by it? Let's not even talk about the Senate where 500k people get the same amount of votes as 50 million. Yes, the founding fathers goal to not let rural areas be unrepresented was achieved at the expense of making the most populous areas underrepresented. So now instead of majority rule dominating minorities, minority rule dominates the majority. Brilliant! What could possibly go wrong? /s

miedpo 7y ago
Mmm... just a thought here. In terms of the Senate and House, that's working as appropriate. Rural areas not dominating cities and cities not dominating rural areas. One would need a policy popular in both to create a national policy (otherwise you create a city or state policy instead). It's a good balance between tyranny of the minority and tyranny of the majority. In terms of the electoral college, perhaps something similar could be done. Not sure how though.
RickJWagner 7y ago
No way. I'm a resident of a rural state. The things you probably find crazy: Gun ownership, owning trucks, large houses, etc. we find essential. It's a big country, with different needs for different people. The day we trash the electoral college is the day we destroy America.
- krapp 7y ago
  >The things you probably find crazy: Gun ownership, owning trucks, large houses, etc. we find essential. Of these, only gun ownership even has remote relevance to Federal politics, and none of them are actually essential, or even exclusive to rural residents to begin with.
  - RickJWagner 7y ago
    Sorry, I should clarify. Those things are essential to our way of life. Our way of commuting, recreating, and living is different than what a large city dweller may be accustomed to. This is why the electoral college is so very important. Without it, politicians would quickly shift even more focus to populous areas, to the detriment of the rest of the country.
    - krapp 7y ago
      You do realize that when presidential nominees come to your rural area, eat at truck stops, pose with hunters, and give speeches about how the "real" Americans are the God-fearing people in the heartland doing honest work in the mines and steel mills and factories, that they're just pandering, right? They don't care about preserving your way of life, only the cold calculus of turning whatever states happen to be the swing states that election year. I mean, the two party process gave you a choice between a millionaire from New York with at least a tenuous cultural connection to rural America, and a billionaire from New York with none, and judging from your former comments, you seem to have voted for the billionaire, and then the electoral college decided whether or not your vote mattered, and chose Kang over Kodos on your behalf. Luckily for you, your state agreed with your vote. But if you happen to be of the wrong party in some states, thanks to the electoral college, your vote simply ceases to matter. I don't think the electoral college is giving you the leverage against urban cultural power you seem to think it does.
- rat87 7y ago
  > The day we trash the electoral college is the day we destroy America. This is a crazy over-reaction. The electoral college is a stupid mistake of history, that doesn't do anything positive but does undermine faith in our political system by making the loser win occasionally. Getting rid of it won't do anything but increase stability a bit
- mnm1 7y ago
  I don't find any of those things crazy as I appreciate most of them too. All three are common place in America. None are in danger of going away. No, what I find crazy is letting millions of fellow Americans die and get sick so that a few people and corporations can get rich off their suffering. And not being prepared for a pandemic because the moron in chief cut the cdc budget and thinks it's a hoax. There's lots of things I find crazy but trucks, big houses, and guns are absolutely not among them.

by mnm1 7y ago

miedpo 7y ago

Mmm... just a thought here. In terms of the Senate and House, that's working as appropriate. Rural areas not dominating cities and cities not dominating rural areas. One would need a policy popular in both to create a national policy (otherwise you create a city or state policy instead). It's a good balance between tyranny of the minority and tyranny of the majority. In terms of the electoral college, perhaps something similar could be done. Not sure how though.

RickJWagner 7y ago

No way. I'm a resident of a rural state. The things you probably find crazy: Gun ownership, owning trucks, large houses, etc. we find essential. It's a big country, with different needs for different people. The day we trash the electoral college is the day we destroy America.

krapp 7y ago
>The things you probably find crazy: Gun ownership, owning trucks, large houses, etc. we find essential. Of these, only gun ownership even has remote relevance to Federal politics, and none of them are actually essential, or even exclusive to rural residents to begin with.
- RickJWagner 7y ago
  Sorry, I should clarify. Those things are essential to our way of life. Our way of commuting, recreating, and living is different than what a large city dweller may be accustomed to. This is why the electoral college is so very important. Without it, politicians would quickly shift even more focus to populous areas, to the detriment of the rest of the country.
  - krapp 7y ago
    You do realize that when presidential nominees come to your rural area, eat at truck stops, pose with hunters, and give speeches about how the "real" Americans are the God-fearing people in the heartland doing honest work in the mines and steel mills and factories, that they're just pandering, right? They don't care about preserving your way of life, only the cold calculus of turning whatever states happen to be the swing states that election year. I mean, the two party process gave you a choice between a millionaire from New York with at least a tenuous cultural connection to rural America, and a billionaire from New York with none, and judging from your former comments, you seem to have voted for the billionaire, and then the electoral college decided whether or not your vote mattered, and chose Kang over Kodos on your behalf. Luckily for you, your state agreed with your vote. But if you happen to be of the wrong party in some states, thanks to the electoral college, your vote simply ceases to matter. I don't think the electoral college is giving you the leverage against urban cultural power you seem to think it does.
rat87 7y ago
> The day we trash the electoral college is the day we destroy America. This is a crazy over-reaction. The electoral college is a stupid mistake of history, that doesn't do anything positive but does undermine faith in our political system by making the loser win occasionally. Getting rid of it won't do anything but increase stability a bit
mnm1 7y ago
I don't find any of those things crazy as I appreciate most of them too. All three are common place in America. None are in danger of going away. No, what I find crazy is letting millions of fellow Americans die and get sick so that a few people and corporations can get rich off their suffering. And not being prepared for a pandemic because the moron in chief cut the cdc budget and thinks it's a hoax. There's lots of things I find crazy but trucks, big houses, and guns are absolutely not among them.