4 ms·

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 directl

by 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.
- pokot0 6y ago
  Hmm.. I struggle to understand your logic. Embedded in the concept of Democracy is the fact that there is a rule by which a decision is made and once taken it impacts everyone lives. Just try to look from the other side of the fence. I can rephrase your question as: "So the few individuals living in rural areas should have the unopposed power to decide all of the federal policies that could impact the lives of the vast majority of the people in the USA?" So yes. I am sorry but with a democracy, you sometime lose and have to accept that the decision is different from your preference. In the US this only applies to federal, how much federal laws should impact states is not really in discussion here (and honestly I have no opinion on the matter. I am originally from Europe and have limited understanding of a lot of states laws and structures). Also, you are confirming my point that rural areas are over-represented. You seem to intend that it is rightly so, but I do find this criteria unjust, just like your example of voting power coupled with amount of friends is. To me, the only criteria that I find just is "every person has one vote with the exact same power". It's simple and naïve, but only one I have seen that I consider fair.
  - russellendicott 6y ago
    Ideas that make sense to people in cities don't always make sense in rural areas. Let's say for an overly simplistic example everyone in a city thinks it's a great idea to tax anyone who lives in a home that has more than 2000 sq ft of living space. In the country _everyone_ meets this criteria so thereforethey are unfairly taxed.
    - pokot0 6y ago
      This sounds very weak. It's like saying "Ideas that makes sense to the lower class don't always make sense to the top 1% net-worth people. For example taxing the rich more. For the top 1% net-worth individuals, _everyone_ meets the criteria and therefore they are unfairly taxed". How you cluster people is irrelevant for a policy to be fair or not. It's petty to chose what gives you an advantage. You should stick to a set of values and agree on policies that better express those values.
      - russellendicott 6y ago
        So what you're saying is that the opinions of rural people regarding uniquely rural problems don't matter in the context of the nation as a whole.
        pokot0 6y ago
        That is not at all what I am saying (or anyone else afaik). Understanding and protecting minorities is one of the core values that need to shapes policies. You can't solve the minority problem by giving them more votes, because you can't give it to all minorities. Everyone is part of somekind of minority. Today rural people are a minory who has a privilege compared to others.

by pokot0 6y ago

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.

pokot0 6y ago
Hmm.. I struggle to understand your logic. Embedded in the concept of Democracy is the fact that there is a rule by which a decision is made and once taken it impacts everyone lives. Just try to look from the other side of the fence. I can rephrase your question as: "So the few individuals living in rural areas should have the unopposed power to decide all of the federal policies that could impact the lives of the vast majority of the people in the USA?" So yes. I am sorry but with a democracy, you sometime lose and have to accept that the decision is different from your preference. In the US this only applies to federal, how much federal laws should impact states is not really in discussion here (and honestly I have no opinion on the matter. I am originally from Europe and have limited understanding of a lot of states laws and structures). Also, you are confirming my point that rural areas are over-represented. You seem to intend that it is rightly so, but I do find this criteria unjust, just like your example of voting power coupled with amount of friends is. To me, the only criteria that I find just is "every person has one vote with the exact same power". It's simple and naïve, but only one I have seen that I consider fair.
- russellendicott 6y ago
  Ideas that make sense to people in cities don't always make sense in rural areas. Let's say for an overly simplistic example everyone in a city thinks it's a great idea to tax anyone who lives in a home that has more than 2000 sq ft of living space. In the country _everyone_ meets this criteria so thereforethey are unfairly taxed.
  - pokot0 6y ago
    This sounds very weak. It's like saying "Ideas that makes sense to the lower class don't always make sense to the top 1% net-worth people. For example taxing the rich more. For the top 1% net-worth individuals, _everyone_ meets the criteria and therefore they are unfairly taxed". How you cluster people is irrelevant for a policy to be fair or not. It's petty to chose what gives you an advantage. You should stick to a set of values and agree on policies that better express those values.
    - russellendicott 6y ago
      So what you're saying is that the opinions of rural people regarding uniquely rural problems don't matter in the context of the nation as a whole.
      - pokot0 6y ago
        That is not at all what I am saying (or anyone else afaik). Understanding and protecting minorities is one of the core values that need to shapes policies. You can't solve the minority problem by giving them more votes, because you can't give it to all minorities. Everyone is part of somekind of minority. Today rural people are a minory who has a privilege compared to others.