4 ms·

This comment is confusing to read. It doesn't matter which party wins the election because the voting system itself is flawed. It's also not a particularly new

This comment is confusing to read. It doesn't matter which party wins the election because the voting system itself is flawed. It's also not a particularly new thesis but an often acknowledged problem. It might be that this was the intent of the system, that doesn't change the fact that nowadays significant portions of the population have gravitated towards a few very large metropolis, effectively giving disproportionate power to the people living in rural areas

kodah 5y ago
The electoral college was set up to protect less densely populated areas from more densely populated areas, so the situation was always that way; it didn't "gravitate". It's not like "rural issues" are the ones dominating legislation or national conversation either. To take a step back, I've lived in both rural areas and major cities (I currently live in one). Rural folks being represented in government is not an issue and I find it kind of odd that people try to make it an issue like this. I'm fine having my agenda compete with theirs.
- 411111111111111 5y ago
  I don't live in the USA, so i'm just repeating whats literally taught in school where i'm from. there were no metropolis like we have them today back then. City were considered gigantic with with only a few hundred thousand people -- which is maybe a largish town nowadays Nobody said that rural people being represented is an issue, its nonetheless a fact that they're overrepresented, as they have disproportionate voting power. That term doesn't mean that they shouldn't be represented, it means that they have proportionally more voting power then a person living in a city does.
  - kodah 5y ago
    > I don't live in the USA, so i'm just repeating whats literally taught in school where i'm from You spoke so certainly about the subject that that was not apparent. Maybe it should have been a question instead? > there were no metropolis like we have them today back then In the US there were, and the early development of the US is the reason for the electoral college. You had sprawling cities like NYC having to vote next to people who took months to get to the East coast for voting. Their problems were very different and the electoral college helped balance the concerns of cities that have easy access to imports and labor with areas that had no such things. On the larger scale it helped protect smaller states and territories from the policy and influence of larger states and territories. Again, their problems are very different, and in current day translate to what we end up referring to as urban, suburban, and rural. > Nobody said that rural people being represented is an issue, its nonetheless a fact that they're overrepresented, In the US they're not and you still haven't answered my original question, which is how are they overrepresented. You're just stating that's a fact, but it's really not.
    - 411111111111111 5y ago
      Isn't "overrepresented" another way of saying that each individual voter living in a rural area has effectively more voting power then it's counterpart living in a metropolis? Thats why I'm stating it as a fact,as it sounds like very simple logical connection. It could be a misunderstanding on my part, but it always sounded like a very straightforward situation to me.
      - kodah 5y ago
        No, voting is much more complicated than that and the history of our voting system speaks to that. Purely popular voting, as in a pure democracy, is demonstrably flawed - that's why representative democracy came about. The foundation of your argument is also flawed; if rural areas are so overrepresented then we'd be seeing a lot more emphasis on the funding of rural schools, hospital systems, clean drinking water, and broadband. Instead, these issues are regularly underfunded and are even joked about on forums like this. There's lots of issues in the US to solve. Voting, imo, is just the pet issue of the losing party.
        411111111111111 5y ago
        > Purely popular voting, as in a pure democracy, is demonstrably flawed - that's why representative democracy came about Every form of democracy is flawed, and it's important to be aware of them. Otherwise things tend to kinda spiral out of control, which they arguably already have in a lot of western nations with wanton corruption and completely insane people getting elected.

kodah 5y ago

The electoral college was set up to protect less densely populated areas from more densely populated areas, so the situation was always that way; it didn't "gravitate". It's not like "rural issues" are the ones dominating legislation or national conversation either. To take a step back, I've lived in both rural areas and major cities (I currently live in one). Rural folks being represented in government is not an issue and I find it kind of odd that people try to make it an issue like this. I'm fine having my agenda compete with theirs.

411111111111111 5y ago
I don't live in the USA, so i'm just repeating whats literally taught in school where i'm from. there were no metropolis like we have them today back then. City were considered gigantic with with only a few hundred thousand people -- which is maybe a largish town nowadays Nobody said that rural people being represented is an issue, its nonetheless a fact that they're overrepresented, as they have disproportionate voting power. That term doesn't mean that they shouldn't be represented, it means that they have proportionally more voting power then a person living in a city does.
- kodah 5y ago
  > I don't live in the USA, so i'm just repeating whats literally taught in school where i'm from You spoke so certainly about the subject that that was not apparent. Maybe it should have been a question instead? > there were no metropolis like we have them today back then In the US there were, and the early development of the US is the reason for the electoral college. You had sprawling cities like NYC having to vote next to people who took months to get to the East coast for voting. Their problems were very different and the electoral college helped balance the concerns of cities that have easy access to imports and labor with areas that had no such things. On the larger scale it helped protect smaller states and territories from the policy and influence of larger states and territories. Again, their problems are very different, and in current day translate to what we end up referring to as urban, suburban, and rural. > Nobody said that rural people being represented is an issue, its nonetheless a fact that they're overrepresented, In the US they're not and you still haven't answered my original question, which is how are they overrepresented. You're just stating that's a fact, but it's really not.
  - 411111111111111 5y ago
    Isn't "overrepresented" another way of saying that each individual voter living in a rural area has effectively more voting power then it's counterpart living in a metropolis? Thats why I'm stating it as a fact,as it sounds like very simple logical connection. It could be a misunderstanding on my part, but it always sounded like a very straightforward situation to me.
    - kodah 5y ago
      No, voting is much more complicated than that and the history of our voting system speaks to that. Purely popular voting, as in a pure democracy, is demonstrably flawed - that's why representative democracy came about. The foundation of your argument is also flawed; if rural areas are so overrepresented then we'd be seeing a lot more emphasis on the funding of rural schools, hospital systems, clean drinking water, and broadband. Instead, these issues are regularly underfunded and are even joked about on forums like this. There's lots of issues in the US to solve. Voting, imo, is just the pet issue of the losing party.
      - 411111111111111 5y ago
        > Purely popular voting, as in a pure democracy, is demonstrably flawed - that's why representative democracy came about Every form of democracy is flawed, and it's important to be aware of them. Otherwise things tend to kinda spiral out of control, which they arguably already have in a lot of western nations with wanton corruption and completely insane people getting elected.