3 ms·

I don’t think it’s an exaggeration. If it can happen then that’s the system. “Sure, a minority can elect our country’s leader. But it only happens sometimes.” D

I don’t think it’s an exaggeration. If it can happen then that’s the system. “Sure, a minority can elect our country’s leader. But it only happens sometimes.” Doesn’t that seem weird? Maybe the connotation of “king” is a bit off, but the president has a huge amount of power and apparently the only check on him (impeachment) has the exact same vulnerabilities that his election has (concentration of power in low population states). I just can’t imagine a group of intelligent people today starting from scratch and deciding this is what we should end up with.

082349872349872 6y ago
To be fair, it wasn't like they started from scratch back then either: there were slave states and free states, and something had to give.
- travisjungroth 6y ago
  Yeah, I don’t mean to rag on the founding fathers. I just find it ridiculous that we’re still dealing with these compromises from disputes 250 years later. That’s another way it’s like a monarchy. “Why is this our government?”. “Well, 250 years ago to avoid war and consolidate power, some agreements were made between landowners and here we are.”
JoeAltmaier 6y ago
Iowa has this kind of primary system. Representatives from the local caucus go to regional and then state. With the same issues. Not all bad - if something changes between the early caucus and the final state convention the delegates can respond.
logifail 6y ago
> “Sure, a minority can elect our country’s leader. But it only happens sometimes.” Doesn’t that seem weird? Q: Is it actually uncommon for a (motivated and/or vocal) minority to end up with [de facto] control over something? To me, it feels like this kind of thing happens all the time :( Read Nassim Nicholas Taleb's “The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority”[0], it's well-argued. [0] https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15 https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...

082349872349872 6y ago

To be fair, it wasn't like they started from scratch back then either: there were slave states and free states, and something had to give.

travisjungroth 6y ago
Yeah, I don’t mean to rag on the founding fathers. I just find it ridiculous that we’re still dealing with these compromises from disputes 250 years later. That’s another way it’s like a monarchy. “Why is this our government?”. “Well, 250 years ago to avoid war and consolidate power, some agreements were made between landowners and here we are.”

JoeAltmaier 6y ago

Iowa has this kind of primary system. Representatives from the local caucus go to regional and then state. With the same issues. Not all bad - if something changes between the early caucus and the final state convention the delegates can respond.

logifail 6y ago

> “Sure, a minority can elect our country’s leader. But it only happens sometimes.” Doesn’t that seem weird? Q: Is it actually uncommon for a (motivated and/or vocal) minority to end up with [de facto] control over something? To me, it feels like this kind of thing happens all the time :( Read Nassim Nicholas Taleb's “The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority”[0], it's well-argued. [0] https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15 https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...