6 ms·

You might want to look at the electoral vote and how 1 vote in Wyoming accounts as much as roughly 4 votes in Texas and California. Pretty serious bug that is e

by pokot0 6y ago

You might want to look at the electoral vote and how 1 vote in Wyoming accounts as much as roughly 4 votes in Texas and California. Pretty serious bug that is enabling the far right to be over represented imo.

briandear 6y ago
The federal government is the government of the individual states. A state is a sovereign entity. Each vote in the United Nations general assembly is identical regardless of the size of the country voting. Ireland’s vote is just as valuable as India’s. That’s the point of the United States — it’s a republic, not a democracy. As far as 1 WY vote being worth 4 Texas votes, that’s also irrelevant because the president is elected as president of the republic, not the president of individual people.
- jdsully 6y ago
  That made sense before nearly everything was declared interstate commerce. The federal government now directly affects people on an individual level in a way it did not when the system was originally formed.
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    If that's the issue then surely it's easier to reverse the judicial precedent than to amend the constitution.
    - jdsully 6y ago
      My understanding is the vast majority of Americans are in favour of harmonization at a federal level. In the original days of the USA I think citizens identified more with their state than the country as a whole. Outside of Texas that is no longer the case.
- pokot0 6y ago
  I never went as far as saying the the USA is not a democracy but you did. Goes far behind my point, but that was the direction. Saying that the president is not a president of the people when people literally vote directly for that person (unlike most of the wester republics) is frankly pretty weak. How can you argue he is not the most influencial political figure in a US citizen life?
  - cherrycherry98 6y ago
    The citizens don't vote directly for the president, the electoral college does. Usually the distinction doesn't matter but it does affect outcomes. States have different rules in how their electors vote for the president. Some states have tied their electoral votes to the national popular vote in the name of increases democracy. It will be interesting to see the first state that has its electoral votes changed due to this. I imagine those residents won't be so thrilled to have their votes go against their will and in favor of how other people in the country voted.
    - pokot0 6y ago
      Yes, I am aware of how it works and indeed it would be interesting to see a change in the election laws. For all practical purposes though, people vote directly for the president (last election is the proof that even a full front effort won't sway the election outcome from the people's votes). The only practical difference is that one single vote has a different weight depending on what state you live in. Rural areas are incredibly over-represented imo. This should be addressed more than the tiny details that don't really change the outcome. Just imagine how different the left and right parties would be if the will of the people would be equally represented.
      - russellendicott 6y ago
        > Rural areas are incredibly over-represented imo. This should be addressed more than the tiny details that don't really change the outcome. So the most populous cities should have the unopposed power to decide all of the federal policies that could impact the lives of rural people? This sounds like the recipe for a Hunger Games classist uprising. This is the same as saying your vote counts less than someone with more friends than you. Might as well just throw out the whole state sovereignty idea which is an option. Our whole system was based on individual rights and that philosophy extends to states as equal members of the union.
- triceratops 6y ago
  > The federal government is the government of the individual states. In that case, why aren't state legislatures or state governors voting for president and members of congress?
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    They did, originally. But then we passed the 17th amendment due to rampant bribery on the part of state leaders selling senate seats.
  - chipsa 6y ago
    Technically, the state legislatures are entirely in control of which electors are sent for the Presidency. It's just that all of them use the popular vote to determine that. They could pass a law that the governor decides who goes, or that the state legislature chooses exactly who. But they don't at this time. And prior to the 17th, Senator were chosen by the state governments as well.
    - triceratops 6y ago
      > But they don't at this time Presumably because people of those states don't want it that way. Which means they consider the federal government "their" government, not the "government of the state".
- saagarjha 6y ago
  > A state is a sovereign entity. Uh, not fully…

by pokot0 6y ago

briandear 6y ago

The federal government is the government of the individual states. A state is a sovereign entity. Each vote in the United Nations general assembly is identical regardless of the size of the country voting. Ireland’s vote is just as valuable as India’s. That’s the point of the United States — it’s a republic, not a democracy. As far as 1 WY vote being worth 4 Texas votes, that’s also irrelevant because the president is elected as president of the republic, not the president of individual people.

jdsully 6y ago
That made sense before nearly everything was declared interstate commerce. The federal government now directly affects people on an individual level in a way it did not when the system was originally formed.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  If that's the issue then surely it's easier to reverse the judicial precedent than to amend the constitution.
  - jdsully 6y ago
    My understanding is the vast majority of Americans are in favour of harmonization at a federal level. In the original days of the USA I think citizens identified more with their state than the country as a whole. Outside of Texas that is no longer the case.
pokot0 6y ago
I never went as far as saying the the USA is not a democracy but you did. Goes far behind my point, but that was the direction. Saying that the president is not a president of the people when people literally vote directly for that person (unlike most of the wester republics) is frankly pretty weak. How can you argue he is not the most influencial political figure in a US citizen life?
- cherrycherry98 6y ago
  The citizens don't vote directly for the president, the electoral college does. Usually the distinction doesn't matter but it does affect outcomes. States have different rules in how their electors vote for the president. Some states have tied their electoral votes to the national popular vote in the name of increases democracy. It will be interesting to see the first state that has its electoral votes changed due to this. I imagine those residents won't be so thrilled to have their votes go against their will and in favor of how other people in the country voted.
  - pokot0 6y ago
    Yes, I am aware of how it works and indeed it would be interesting to see a change in the election laws. For all practical purposes though, people vote directly for the president (last election is the proof that even a full front effort won't sway the election outcome from the people's votes). The only practical difference is that one single vote has a different weight depending on what state you live in. Rural areas are incredibly over-represented imo. This should be addressed more than the tiny details that don't really change the outcome. Just imagine how different the left and right parties would be if the will of the people would be equally represented.
    - russellendicott 6y ago
      > Rural areas are incredibly over-represented imo. This should be addressed more than the tiny details that don't really change the outcome. So the most populous cities should have the unopposed power to decide all of the federal policies that could impact the lives of rural people? This sounds like the recipe for a Hunger Games classist uprising. This is the same as saying your vote counts less than someone with more friends than you. Might as well just throw out the whole state sovereignty idea which is an option. Our whole system was based on individual rights and that philosophy extends to states as equal members of the union.
triceratops 6y ago
> The federal government is the government of the individual states. In that case, why aren't state legislatures or state governors voting for president and members of congress?
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  They did, originally. But then we passed the 17th amendment due to rampant bribery on the part of state leaders selling senate seats.
- chipsa 6y ago
  Technically, the state legislatures are entirely in control of which electors are sent for the Presidency. It's just that all of them use the popular vote to determine that. They could pass a law that the governor decides who goes, or that the state legislature chooses exactly who. But they don't at this time. And prior to the 17th, Senator were chosen by the state governments as well.
  - triceratops 6y ago
    > But they don't at this time Presumably because people of those states don't want it that way. Which means they consider the federal government "their" government, not the "government of the state".
saagarjha 6y ago
> A state is a sovereign entity. Uh, not fully…