7 ms·

You say this as though this means a popular vote is a better idea, rather than a worse idea.

danaris 4y ago
What do you think would happen if every person in LA County had their vote for president count as much as every person in Wyoming? It's not like the vote for President is something where people from cities are going to have an opportunity to vote to harvest the blood and organs from people from rural areas or something (as if that's something they even would vote for if that were on the table). It's literally only about electing the President. That's all the electoral college affects. It's become somewhat of a meme that there's this big divide between rural dwellers and city dwellers, and that somehow if city dwellers were allowed to have genuine proportional representation, somehow they would screw over the rural dwellers, but I have never heard anyone articulate any specific thing they think would go toward that. Let alone how they think getting proportional representation purely for Presidential elections would let them do so.
- pie_flavor 4y ago
  But the president does not just represent dwellers. He also represents jurisdictions and governments. This is the reason a state's pull in the presidential election is a combination of its pull in the House (representing purely dwellers) and its pull in the Senate (representing purely jurisdictions/governments). People who want a popular vote for the president fundamentally do not see the US as a federation. People who want a leader for LA can vote for LA's mayor. It is unfortunate how many people did not pay attention in civics class when they went over every compromise made in the formation of the Constitution, especially the ones about population proportionality as it relates to the legislative and executive branches. If you want the particular arguments for how large states would screw over small ones, the records of the Constitutional Convention are a good place to start.
  - skinnymuch 4y ago
    I briefly went over what the founders actually thought of people like non land owners and democracy. Spoiler: they didn’t care for democracy as much as their own class and kind having a lot of power. It’s unfortunate how much people pay attention to civics classes and never learn what the status quo has no interest in teaching them.
  - divided 4y ago
    Ah yes, the 3/5ths compromise and its relevance to today’s world. Basing one’s political beliefs on apportionment of power over the fears held by 18th century politicians feels ripe for bad takes. There are many, many other divides than high population vs low population territories that we conveniently ignore in this debate. If you want to argue in favor of the population of smaller states deserving greater representation, can I get you on board for giving black people, Muslims, LGBTQ members, and communists vote multipliers as well? You see, there’s actual historical precedent for population majorities screwing over these groups. In comparison, those small population states you fight so valiantly to protect historically receive more tax dollars than they pay in. Seems like a pretty sweet deal. Before you say hey that’s all thanks to disproportionate representation, Canada and other countries with more proportionate representation see the same thing. You see, small population states are in general beneficiaries of putting their lot in with bigger states. Giving them more vote power on top of that is… silly.
    - pie_flavor 4y ago
      No, you cannot get me on board with that, because they do not have their own governments that federate with those of states. In case you missed the entirety of the comment you're responding to, the issue is not groups of people, the issue is governments. You can analyze this from the perspective of different ways of looking at groups of people, but you won't be doing anything different. You can talk about where tax dollars go, but if that was the real issue you'd be complaining about tax policy instead of the electoral college. And if your gut reaction to discussion about the formation of the Constitution is to echo something about the ⅗ compromise and the 1700s, I doubt there is any more nuanced version of this you're holding in reserve.
      - divided 4y ago
        What's so special about squiggly lines drawn by politicians generations ago? You realize there's no divinity in the division between South and North Dakota, right? Even back then these territories were being divided up to maximize political power. I could be wrong, but I genuinely believe the problem with your line of reasoning is you're rationalizing for a system that benefits you. Your ideology benefits from how things are, and so you find reasons to justify why the way things are is good, actually. If say states had been divided up differently, would your entire belief system crumble? Assume city-states were the norm and the Senate was overwhelmingly controlled by whichever party controlled urban populations. Like say North Carolina got divided into Raleigh-Durham, Charlotte, the Triangle, Wilmington, and the rest of the state as just one big territory. And every state was like this. Would you suddenly say hey this is a bad system, not because it benefits people I don't agree with, but because of some other silly reason? What is so magical about lines put on maps by our great-great-great grandfathers? If there was a magical US with three states, two with only 1 citizen and one with 1,000,000, would you still hold by your principle that they have their own governments that federate with those of states so this is good? Where in your system do you draw the line and make a distinction between fair and unfair? How do you determine if one arrangement is more fair than another? Why would you not push for the most fair arrangement? My principle is embarrassingly simple. Political power should be equal to the number of people represented. That's it. Easy to explain, easy to grasp, easy to measure whether something is fair or unfair. It's imperfect--Lord knows population majorities can still be bastards--but it's the best, most egalitarian system created. And, importantly, it's a principle that doesn't change just because it doesn't benefit me. You're right, it's not very nuanced. Simple often works best.
throw0101a 4y ago
You say this like some people's votes should count less than other people's votes.

What do you think would happen if every person in LA County had their vote for president count as much as every person in Wyoming? It's not like the vote for President is something where people from cities are going to have an opportunity to vote to harvest the blood and organs from people from rural areas or something (as if that's something they even would vote for if that were on the table). It's literally only about electing the President. That's all the electoral college affects. It's become somewhat of a meme that there's this big divide between rural dwellers and city dwellers, and that somehow if city dwellers were allowed to have genuine proportional representation, somehow they would screw over the rural dwellers, but I have never heard anyone articulate any specific thing they think would go toward that. Let alone how they think getting proportional representation purely for Presidential elections would let them do so.

pie_flavor 4y ago
But the president does not just represent dwellers. He also represents jurisdictions and governments. This is the reason a state's pull in the presidential election is a combination of its pull in the House (representing purely dwellers) and its pull in the Senate (representing purely jurisdictions/governments). People who want a popular vote for the president fundamentally do not see the US as a federation. People who want a leader for LA can vote for LA's mayor. It is unfortunate how many people did not pay attention in civics class when they went over every compromise made in the formation of the Constitution, especially the ones about population proportionality as it relates to the legislative and executive branches. If you want the particular arguments for how large states would screw over small ones, the records of the Constitutional Convention are a good place to start.
- skinnymuch 4y ago
  I briefly went over what the founders actually thought of people like non land owners and democracy. Spoiler: they didn’t care for democracy as much as their own class and kind having a lot of power. It’s unfortunate how much people pay attention to civics classes and never learn what the status quo has no interest in teaching them.
- divided 4y ago
  Ah yes, the 3/5ths compromise and its relevance to today’s world. Basing one’s political beliefs on apportionment of power over the fears held by 18th century politicians feels ripe for bad takes. There are many, many other divides than high population vs low population territories that we conveniently ignore in this debate. If you want to argue in favor of the population of smaller states deserving greater representation, can I get you on board for giving black people, Muslims, LGBTQ members, and communists vote multipliers as well? You see, there’s actual historical precedent for population majorities screwing over these groups. In comparison, those small population states you fight so valiantly to protect historically receive more tax dollars than they pay in. Seems like a pretty sweet deal. Before you say hey that’s all thanks to disproportionate representation, Canada and other countries with more proportionate representation see the same thing. You see, small population states are in general beneficiaries of putting their lot in with bigger states. Giving them more vote power on top of that is… silly.
  - pie_flavor 4y ago
    No, you cannot get me on board with that, because they do not have their own governments that federate with those of states. In case you missed the entirety of the comment you're responding to, the issue is not groups of people, the issue is governments. You can analyze this from the perspective of different ways of looking at groups of people, but you won't be doing anything different. You can talk about where tax dollars go, but if that was the real issue you'd be complaining about tax policy instead of the electoral college. And if your gut reaction to discussion about the formation of the Constitution is to echo something about the ⅗ compromise and the 1700s, I doubt there is any more nuanced version of this you're holding in reserve.
    - divided 4y ago
      What's so special about squiggly lines drawn by politicians generations ago? You realize there's no divinity in the division between South and North Dakota, right? Even back then these territories were being divided up to maximize political power. I could be wrong, but I genuinely believe the problem with your line of reasoning is you're rationalizing for a system that benefits you. Your ideology benefits from how things are, and so you find reasons to justify why the way things are is good, actually. If say states had been divided up differently, would your entire belief system crumble? Assume city-states were the norm and the Senate was overwhelmingly controlled by whichever party controlled urban populations. Like say North Carolina got divided into Raleigh-Durham, Charlotte, the Triangle, Wilmington, and the rest of the state as just one big territory. And every state was like this. Would you suddenly say hey this is a bad system, not because it benefits people I don't agree with, but because of some other silly reason? What is so magical about lines put on maps by our great-great-great grandfathers? If there was a magical US with three states, two with only 1 citizen and one with 1,000,000, would you still hold by your principle that they have their own governments that federate with those of states so this is good? Where in your system do you draw the line and make a distinction between fair and unfair? How do you determine if one arrangement is more fair than another? Why would you not push for the most fair arrangement? My principle is embarrassingly simple. Political power should be equal to the number of people represented. That's it. Easy to explain, easy to grasp, easy to measure whether something is fair or unfair. It's imperfect--Lord knows population majorities can still be bastards--but it's the best, most egalitarian system created. And, importantly, it's a principle that doesn't change just because it doesn't benefit me. You're right, it's not very nuanced. Simple often works best.

throw0101a 4y ago

You say this like some people's votes should count less than other people's votes.