4 ms·
I think there are positives over a direct vote. I like that presidential candidates have to consider the desires of smaller states instead of simply playing to
by RhysU 4y ago
I think there are positives over a direct vote. I like that presidential candidates have to consider the desires of smaller states instead of simply playing to large cities. I think that it produces better outcomes for the country than a direct alternative.
- oneoff786 4y agoI’m not a fan of my vote not mattering at all because my state is solidly one color or another. Meanwhile rando’s in Pennsylvania matter immensely, and it’s largely just a race to see which side can rally enough people from either the city or the surrounding areas to go to the polls.
- ajmurmann 4y agoThat's also why complaining about voter turnout in the US is at best annoying and worst dishonest. In most states, including some of the larger ones, it wouldn't change the outcome at all if 100% voted. It's actually surprising that turnout is as high as it is.
- RhysU 4y agoI am from Pennsylvania but I have lived many places. I assure you that the randos are everywhere.
- kristiandupont 4y agoDoesn't "rando" just mean "random person"?
- RhysU 4y agoIt is pejorative.
- oneoff786 4y agoAgainst whom? A person who could be randomly selected?
- RhysU 4y agoTo elaborate: Suppose I said, "Your [loved one] is a rando." That clearly is a negative statement implying that their behavior is irrational (i.e. random). Urban Dictionary has an entry starting "an unpredictable, awkward and often creepy individual..."
- oneoff786 4y agoUrban dictionary is not an authoritative source but even that one doesn’t agree with you. Number one definition is “a random person or thing”. The one You referenced is almost net negative votes. Your example sentence is just not a semantically correct way to use the word. All of which is pretty pointless because you’re arguing an alternate semantic interpretation vs me, the person who used the word and is stating that’s not what was intended.
- oneoff786 4y agoThe presence of rando’s is not my problem with the situation… obviously?
- LeifCarrotson 4y agoThat's just another way of saying that an individual in a smaller state is more important than an individual in a large city. The Senate and the electoral college are the modern 3/5ths compromise. Every human in the country ought to have the same ability to influence the outcome of elections, regardless of how much land they own.
- RhysU 4y agoYes. And any city dweller can move to the county or vice versa. The rules of the game are well-known, hence fair.
- LordKeren 4y agoThis is fundamentally wrong because states don’t break votes into urban, suburban, and country voters. It’s winner takes all for the state. There are a huge amount of people who’s vote for president does not matter at all due to the voting trends of their state. These people’s only option is to move to a swing state. This is a nonsense solution to an obviously flawed system of voting that can be fixed incredibly easily
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> another way of saying that an individual in a smaller state is more important than an individual in a large city An individual in the country is more able to rebel than an individual in the country. Territorial integrity was the original motivation for the system. It still has arguments for it, though the massive shift in relative economic productivity makes the college, in my opinion, obsolete.
- jibalt 4y ago
- RhysU 4y ago
- jibalt 4y ago
- RhysU 4y agoSeriously, if the problem with the electoral college is disparate per capita representation and you're saying that needs to be fixed then it follows that the Senate is also a problem and we shouldn't have an upper and a lower legislative chamber at the federal or any level. Yet these systems have worked for centuries.
- oceanplexian 4y agoThe US exists because a far-away British majority oppressively over-taxed and over-regulated a minority group of colonies, leading to the Revolutionary War. US states may not be countries, but there was a time in history where they had a choice to form the fledging United States. There were a number of compromises that everyone agreed to. One of the most important compromises was that the States had assurances that high population states would not be able to step all over the smaller colonies, and that the Federal government would not simply become another tyrannical monarchy.
- LordKeren 4y agoIt doesn’t really do that though. All the electoral college does is make presidential campaigns hyper focus on swing states. You don’t see many presidential candidates stopping over in Vermont.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Miner49er 4y agoYeah, I'm not sure why you're getting downvoted. Some of the founding fathers that it was fair to give people in smaller states equal representation in the Senate and part of the electoral college, because they didn't want them to be effectively ruled by the people in cities. I can understand why many people think its unfair, but there's at least an argument to be made that it should exist. OP was saying he has only met people who think it is unfair, but you are pointing out that it exists for a reason. I do think there is some concern with having people in cities effectively rule over those outside of cities. I could see it resulting in poor economic outcomes for those outside of cities, since rural areas and cities tend to have very different economies. This could lead to some poor outcomes. Like rural areas becoming even less populated, even more political unrest and division, etc. I also think that the effect of the electoral college giving some individuals more of a vote doesn't come close to the effect wealth gives. Wealth will always generate way more of a "vote" then living somewhere like Wyoming.