3 ms·

And to think, people in the U.S are fuming about the Electoral College. Wait till they find out about QV. Imagine getting involved in some shitcoin project whe

And to think, people in the U.S are fuming about the Electoral College. Wait till they find out about QV. Imagine getting involved in some shitcoin project where a guy with a hundredth of your investment has a tenth of your voting power

bergenty 4y ago
Isn’t the electoral college worse. Someone living in some sparsely populated midwestern state has more than 100x the voting impact as someone from an urban area even though they may contribute very little to the economy and probably receive a lot of welfare and subsidies. I’ve been fuming.
- KevinEldon 4y ago
  The bigoted, classist, and emotional language in your statement undermine your argument. Edit: Rewording my comment for clarity and to remove passive aggressive phrasing.
  - rrrrrrrrrrrryan 4y ago
    Imagine a tiny geographical area that punches above its weight (economically-speaking). Its people pay a ton in taxes, take very little from the government, but they also have disproportionately large voting power. While this setup is blatantly undemocratic, it could be hard to argue that their voting power should be reduced when they're contributing more to the pot than they're taking out. A bullshit justification to someone who actually values democracy, but this logic isn't entirely insane. Indeed, this scenario is reality in some places on earth. America, as we all know, is nothing like this. The smaller states take more than they give. There is no excuse to not make their votes count the same as everyone else's.
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 4y ago
  A vote in Wyoming is worth 3.6x a vote in California due to the electoral college makeup. This is just raw voting power though, not the "impact" you're likely describing. Votes in battleground states will always have more impact, but that has less to do with the electoral college makeup and more to do with the fact that we group the votes geographically and allocate them all to the same person. If/when Texas becomes purple, the impact of a vote there will be greater than one from a tiny deep red state, despite the fact that voters have less voting power.

bergenty 4y ago

Isn’t the electoral college worse. Someone living in some sparsely populated midwestern state has more than 100x the voting impact as someone from an urban area even though they may contribute very little to the economy and probably receive a lot of welfare and subsidies. I’ve been fuming.

KevinEldon 4y ago
The bigoted, classist, and emotional language in your statement undermine your argument. Edit: Rewording my comment for clarity and to remove passive aggressive phrasing.
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 4y ago
  Imagine a tiny geographical area that punches above its weight (economically-speaking). Its people pay a ton in taxes, take very little from the government, but they also have disproportionately large voting power. While this setup is blatantly undemocratic, it could be hard to argue that their voting power should be reduced when they're contributing more to the pot than they're taking out. A bullshit justification to someone who actually values democracy, but this logic isn't entirely insane. Indeed, this scenario is reality in some places on earth. America, as we all know, is nothing like this. The smaller states take more than they give. There is no excuse to not make their votes count the same as everyone else's.
rrrrrrrrrrrryan 4y ago
A vote in Wyoming is worth 3.6x a vote in California due to the electoral college makeup. This is just raw voting power though, not the "impact" you're likely describing. Votes in battleground states will always have more impact, but that has less to do with the electoral college makeup and more to do with the fact that we group the votes geographically and allocate them all to the same person. If/when Texas becomes purple, the impact of a vote there will be greater than one from a tiny deep red state, despite the fact that voters have less voting power.