3 ms·

I guess I don't see why it is stupid in this example? The intent is to represent everyone and not just the majority. Things are not "stupid" just because they d

by yesco 4y ago

I guess I don't see why it is stupid in this example? The intent is to represent everyone and not just the majority. Things are not "stupid" just because they don't go your way.

lotsofpulp 4y ago
People’s votes in a democracy already represent everyone. Gerrymandered votes along arbitrary geographic lines represents the people whose votes happen to be a majority within those arbitrary geographic lines (states). >Things are not "stupid" just because they don't go your way. Things going the majority’s way is called democracy.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > People’s votes in a democracy already represent everyone To the extent that the electoral system produces proportional representation, sure. The US system, even before considering distortions from deliberate gerrymandering, does a piss poor job of representing anywhere close to everyone.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    I do not understand your comment. I am arguing that the electoral college is less representative in a presidential election than popular vote. Which seems obvious to me, assuming you want everyone to have equal voting power for the president.
Analemma_ 4y ago
> The intent is to represent everyone and not just the majority. This has nothing to do with my point and, tbh, sounds like a canned response that you just mindlessly repeat instead of seeing whether it applies to the situation. To explain: suppose the population of Cuban ex-pats decided to disperse all over the country. The political makeup of the country, in terms of median voter opinion, is exactly the same, yet the net effect on foreign policy is massive. That is not a voting symptom that "represents everybody".
- yesco 4y ago
  It is the "United States" of America, so yes if a community hypothetically obliterated itself by dispersing over a bunch of different states, they wouldn't receive the same level of representation anymore. But they wouldn't really be a "community" anymore either so I don't really get the point you are trying to make.
whywhywhydude 4y ago
Shouldn’t the intent be to serve everyone in the country - not just to pander to some powerful minority’s non-sensical agendas.

by yesco 4y ago

I guess I don't see why it is stupid in this example? The intent is to represent everyone and not just the majority. Things are not "stupid" just because they don't go your way.

lotsofpulp 4y ago

People’s votes in a democracy already represent everyone. Gerrymandered votes along arbitrary geographic lines represents the people whose votes happen to be a majority within those arbitrary geographic lines (states). >Things are not "stupid" just because they don't go your way. Things going the majority’s way is called democracy.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> People’s votes in a democracy already represent everyone To the extent that the electoral system produces proportional representation, sure. The US system, even before considering distortions from deliberate gerrymandering, does a piss poor job of representing anywhere close to everyone.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  I do not understand your comment. I am arguing that the electoral college is less representative in a presidential election than popular vote. Which seems obvious to me, assuming you want everyone to have equal voting power for the president.

Analemma_ 4y ago

> The intent is to represent everyone and not just the majority. This has nothing to do with my point and, tbh, sounds like a canned response that you just mindlessly repeat instead of seeing whether it applies to the situation. To explain: suppose the population of Cuban ex-pats decided to disperse all over the country. The political makeup of the country, in terms of median voter opinion, is exactly the same, yet the net effect on foreign policy is massive. That is not a voting symptom that "represents everybody".

yesco 4y ago
It is the "United States" of America, so yes if a community hypothetically obliterated itself by dispersing over a bunch of different states, they wouldn't receive the same level of representation anymore. But they wouldn't really be a "community" anymore either so I don't really get the point you are trying to make.

whywhywhydude 4y ago

Shouldn’t the intent be to serve everyone in the country - not just to pander to some powerful minority’s non-sensical agendas.