6 ms·

People in population centers tend to think similarly due to a similar environment. What a city desires in the nation's leader does not necessarily align with r

People in population centers tend to think similarly due to a similar environment. What a city desires in the nation's leader does not necessarily align with rural voters. You must see the danger in a few, albeit large, groups having the majority of the population. Say LA and New York decide that a communist leader would be best for the country. How the hell do residents outside the cities stand up against that in any way but force.

theplague42 6y ago
Do you think that's a bigger issue than 2000 and 2016 where more people voted for the other guy? Also, wouldn't rural areas have the same problem? And probably even worse due to less diversity?
cycomanic 6y ago
People in rural areas think similarly due to a similar environment. What a rural area desires in the nation's leader does not necessarily align with city voters. You must see the danger of minority having the majority of the voting power. Say Louisiana and the mid-west would decide that a fascist leader would be best for the country. How the hell do residents in the cities stand up against that in any way but force. Works just as well, and is what is actually happening.
- tastyfreeze 6y ago
  Ok, accepting it can go both ways. Why would you want one small portion of the country deciding the direction of the country instead of each state having an equal say? Isn't an equal say more fair for all states?
  - majormajor 6y ago
    Because state sizes are massively lopsided. Split California into 6 states and they could still each have more population than many other ones. In your system, they not have 6 times as much total power. How does THAT make sense?
    - tastyfreeze 6y ago
      Because they are 1 of 50 states. A state is a single member of a union. The influence of a state should not be determined by geographic size or population. The compromise of quantity of electoral votes was in response to your argument. I am saying that it was a poor compromise that has resulted in eroding the protections of the electoral college as populations have grown. What we have is like saying the fat guy in the group counts a 3 people.
      - theplague42 6y ago
        No, it's like saying 100 people living in one house get the same say as 1 person living in another house. You literally used people in your example!
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Say LA and New York decide that a communist leader would be best for the country. How the hell do residents outside the cities stand up against that in any way but force. By having a Constitution that protects a basic model of government and requires a supermajority of states to consent to changes. People having unequal representation in the national legislature or Presidential elections doesn't help that and isn't useful too it (well, the general problem. It might help specifically against unwelcome government supported by large-population states, but only by magnifying the risk of such when supported by small population states.) Urban/rural isn't really the divide the Senate/EC works on. California’s rural population, whose voting power is deweighted by the Senate and EC just as much as that of the urban population, is bigger than that of the six smallest states combined.
croon 6y ago
Say that less people, but in key states decide that an autocratic fascist should be best for the country, despite more people voting for someone else? How do the majority stand up against that?
- tastyfreeze 6y ago
  It comes down to the question of whether we are a nation of a single people or a nation of autonomous states. We cannot be a nation of a single people due to the diversity of people spread across an immense chunk of land. What is important to me in Alaska is only tangentially related to what is important in NYC. A popular vote is a path to disbanding states and removes an important protection by the states against a tyrannical national government. By maintaining states we allow issues of state importance to only be important in that state instead of requiring the whole nation be subject.
  - croon 6y ago
    That's a very limited/specific scope. What you are also saying is that you are ignoring up to half of the people of Alaska as the elections are winner-takes-all. If instead it was one person one vote, and representational per state, everyone would have a say. Everyone in Alaska with your views would be heard, as well as everyone in NYC with your views. What you are calling "tyrannical national government" would be majority rule (ie what more people wants, as opposed to now), and is just as true on a state level, just on another scale. Also how the presidential election is structured isn't actually related to the question of federal control. Federal control over state control has been a hot topic in the last 4 years either way.
michaelmrose 6y ago
The constitution provides hard limits to what anyone can do without overwhelming support and substantial due process. You cannot implement a communist dictatorship within the scope of the current US constitution. The supreme court provides another check as the composition changes slowly. Your charge could be leveled in reverse and better wielded. >People in rural areas tend to think similarly due to a similar environment. What a rural area desires in the nation's leader does not necessarily align with city voters. You must see the danger in a few, smallgroups having the majority of the power. >Say 10 states comprising less than 3% of the population decide that a communist leader would be best for the country. How the hell do residents outside the cities stand up against that in any way but force. Note the 10 lowest population states really do comprise less than 3% of the US population.

theplague42 6y ago

Do you think that's a bigger issue than 2000 and 2016 where more people voted for the other guy? Also, wouldn't rural areas have the same problem? And probably even worse due to less diversity?

cycomanic 6y ago

People in rural areas think similarly due to a similar environment. What a rural area desires in the nation's leader does not necessarily align with city voters. You must see the danger of minority having the majority of the voting power. Say Louisiana and the mid-west would decide that a fascist leader would be best for the country. How the hell do residents in the cities stand up against that in any way but force. Works just as well, and is what is actually happening.

tastyfreeze 6y ago
Ok, accepting it can go both ways. Why would you want one small portion of the country deciding the direction of the country instead of each state having an equal say? Isn't an equal say more fair for all states?
- majormajor 6y ago
  Because state sizes are massively lopsided. Split California into 6 states and they could still each have more population than many other ones. In your system, they not have 6 times as much total power. How does THAT make sense?
  - tastyfreeze 6y ago
    Because they are 1 of 50 states. A state is a single member of a union. The influence of a state should not be determined by geographic size or population. The compromise of quantity of electoral votes was in response to your argument. I am saying that it was a poor compromise that has resulted in eroding the protections of the electoral college as populations have grown. What we have is like saying the fat guy in the group counts a 3 people.
    - theplague42 6y ago
      No, it's like saying 100 people living in one house get the same say as 1 person living in another house. You literally used people in your example!

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Say LA and New York decide that a communist leader would be best for the country. How the hell do residents outside the cities stand up against that in any way but force. By having a Constitution that protects a basic model of government and requires a supermajority of states to consent to changes. People having unequal representation in the national legislature or Presidential elections doesn't help that and isn't useful too it (well, the general problem. It might help specifically against unwelcome government supported by large-population states, but only by magnifying the risk of such when supported by small population states.) Urban/rural isn't really the divide the Senate/EC works on. California’s rural population, whose voting power is deweighted by the Senate and EC just as much as that of the urban population, is bigger than that of the six smallest states combined.

croon 6y ago

Say that less people, but in key states decide that an autocratic fascist should be best for the country, despite more people voting for someone else? How do the majority stand up against that?

tastyfreeze 6y ago
It comes down to the question of whether we are a nation of a single people or a nation of autonomous states. We cannot be a nation of a single people due to the diversity of people spread across an immense chunk of land. What is important to me in Alaska is only tangentially related to what is important in NYC. A popular vote is a path to disbanding states and removes an important protection by the states against a tyrannical national government. By maintaining states we allow issues of state importance to only be important in that state instead of requiring the whole nation be subject.
- croon 6y ago
  That's a very limited/specific scope. What you are also saying is that you are ignoring up to half of the people of Alaska as the elections are winner-takes-all. If instead it was one person one vote, and representational per state, everyone would have a say. Everyone in Alaska with your views would be heard, as well as everyone in NYC with your views. What you are calling "tyrannical national government" would be majority rule (ie what more people wants, as opposed to now), and is just as true on a state level, just on another scale. Also how the presidential election is structured isn't actually related to the question of federal control. Federal control over state control has been a hot topic in the last 4 years either way.

michaelmrose 6y ago

The constitution provides hard limits to what anyone can do without overwhelming support and substantial due process. You cannot implement a communist dictatorship within the scope of the current US constitution. The supreme court provides another check as the composition changes slowly. Your charge could be leveled in reverse and better wielded. >People in rural areas tend to think similarly due to a similar environment. What a rural area desires in the nation's leader does not necessarily align with city voters. You must see the danger in a few, smallgroups having the majority of the power. >Say 10 states comprising less than 3% of the population decide that a communist leader would be best for the country. How the hell do residents outside the cities stand up against that in any way but force. Note the 10 lowest population states really do comprise less than 3% of the US population.