3 ms·

This is a pretty bad take. Many countries weigh population of voting regions. The idea is that the people in a smaller region with its own needs doesn't get its

This is a pretty bad take. Many countries weigh population of voting regions. The idea is that the people in a smaller region with its own needs doesn't get its priorities relegated to oblivion just because no the same people live there than in a big city. Not weighing votes by population alienates the rural voters.

ksaj 2y ago
The college vote has little to do with population. It might have started that way, but it seems to be more about artificially inflating one side of the vote these days. (To be fair, redistricting has been abused for this effect as well, although on a smaller scale.) It makes it so it is possible to lose every popular vote, yet still win the election "by a landslide." What other countries are doing this? I can't think of any.
- gfiorav 2y ago
  I see your point, and the Electoral College may need some updating (there’s also gerrymandering, which is problematic). However, I’d argue that the “popular vote” is not the best approach. For huge countries where people’s lives are very varied, I think you need something to equate regions to others. The ancient Greeks tried direct democracy, and it didn’t work. The Founding Fathers knew this and called direct democracy “anarchy.” Not far off from the truth if you ask me, and the Greeks are a great cautionary tale on this. Representative democracy, strongly coupled with local representation and a two-party system (yes, yes, I know) is where it’s at. The two-party system forces local reps to align with the bloc that most represents their interests ahead of the election. If you look at Europe, many citizens vote for a party only to see them make alliances and concessions with other minority parties that they wouldn’t have approved (e.g., Spain with independence parties). Many things need updating, but I think it’s a mistake to forget history and assume that the U.S. political system was just randomly put together. There’s a lot of interesting history to dig into there (for example, the Federalist Papers).
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  >The college vote has little to do with population. You do realize the majority of electors are allocated by population, right? Specifically, the Electoral College mirrors the allocation of Congress with D.C. added at the same allocation as the smallest State as a special bonus.

ksaj 2y ago

The college vote has little to do with population. It might have started that way, but it seems to be more about artificially inflating one side of the vote these days. (To be fair, redistricting has been abused for this effect as well, although on a smaller scale.) It makes it so it is possible to lose every popular vote, yet still win the election "by a landslide." What other countries are doing this? I can't think of any.

gfiorav 2y ago
I see your point, and the Electoral College may need some updating (there’s also gerrymandering, which is problematic). However, I’d argue that the “popular vote” is not the best approach. For huge countries where people’s lives are very varied, I think you need something to equate regions to others. The ancient Greeks tried direct democracy, and it didn’t work. The Founding Fathers knew this and called direct democracy “anarchy.” Not far off from the truth if you ask me, and the Greeks are a great cautionary tale on this. Representative democracy, strongly coupled with local representation and a two-party system (yes, yes, I know) is where it’s at. The two-party system forces local reps to align with the bloc that most represents their interests ahead of the election. If you look at Europe, many citizens vote for a party only to see them make alliances and concessions with other minority parties that they wouldn’t have approved (e.g., Spain with independence parties). Many things need updating, but I think it’s a mistake to forget history and assume that the U.S. political system was just randomly put together. There’s a lot of interesting history to dig into there (for example, the Federalist Papers).
Dalewyn 2y ago
>The college vote has little to do with population. You do realize the majority of electors are allocated by population, right? Specifically, the Electoral College mirrors the allocation of Congress with D.C. added at the same allocation as the smallest State as a special bonus.