5 ms·

All that means is that we don't have a one-person one-vote system. Some people's votes matter more than others. What we have is a case of civil inequality. If

All that means is that we don't have a one-person one-vote system. Some people's votes matter more than others. What we have is a case of civil inequality. If we build a system where everyone's votes count the same (radical and extreme idea, I know), then each person will have the same fundamental incentive to vote.

Zigurd 2y ago
Direct election of the US president would be an improvement. Expanding the House of Representatives as originally formulated, or similarly, would help. Making the Senate reflect the population better by dividing populous states, and/or a statehood option for Puerto Rico and DC would help. Striking down gerrymanders would help. More contested down-ballot races would help. No excuse for the parties to not have strong organization and candidate recruitment at that level. No changes to laws needed for this.
renewiltord 2y ago
Well, it's a federation of states so you can't quite do that unless you abandon that conceit.
- kibwen 2y ago
  No, devolving powers to the states is what makes it a federation. Having a state-representative legislative chamber makes it a federation. Electing a federal president via popular vote does not indicate defederation any more than the existence of the House of Representatives does.
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    Electing a president via popular vote would give populous states disproportionate influence over the country compared to other states. That is important because the president could do obnoxious things against the best interest of any particular state, especially ones with less influence. The stuff happening to your home state is way more relevant to your life than your political party or special interests.
    - bryanlarsen 2y ago
      Arbitrary lines on maps are arbitrary. North & South Dakota are far more similar than north and south California.
      - wakawaka28 2y ago
        The lines on maps are not arbitrary. People decided them by choice and in some cases by force. You might feel no particular attachment to your state, but if another state decided that your state should be exploited in some way, your primary source of support would be your neighbors within those so-called arbitrary lines.
        bryanlarsen 2y ago
        I used North and South Dakota for a reason. The only reason they were split was to hijack the Senate.
        wakawaka28 2y ago
        That is misleading. There was no state of Dakota. The two became states at the same time. Even Wikipedia says this: >Regionalist tensions between the northern and the southern parts of the territory were present since the beginning. So, the split was not likely about senate seats. It was about people getting along within each state.
    - Zigurd 2y ago
      > Electing a president via popular vote would give populous states disproportionate influence over the country compared to other states. It would give every human, who has the right to representation, exactly proportionate influence. The weird fashy retired cops in Idaho will have to settle for having the same number of senators as Californians have.
      - wakawaka28 2y ago
        That is not a good argument. People have a right to self-determination. The same logic of populism can be applied on a trans-national scale, even. There is no limit because under your logic, any person's vote is as good as any other's. The fact is we have states to provide a level of autonomy and independence to geographically separate groups of people, so they can live with more freedom. I don't care if the entire state of California is against how I live, because they are thousands of miles away and deserve less say in how I live than my neighbors. The federal system we have strikes a balance between the two. A president of a federation such as the US must represent the individual states equally, because there can only be one president and that seat has disproportionate power. I really think people flip flop on the popular vote issue based on whether they think it helps their particular party or not, which is unbelievably short-sighted.
  - bitshiftfaced 2y ago
    The states negotiated terms before they agreed to join. Not having a popular vote is part of the reason why we have a federal system in the first place. People can argue pros and cons, but it's fairly meaningless since we're already in an established deal, and it's very unlikely that the many states will agree to undo that deal.
    - Apocryphon 2y ago
      Amending the Constitution does seem like a fairly remote possibility, but then there's also this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...
zarathustreal 2y ago
> we don’t have a one-person one-vote system. Correct, and that’s a good thing! Intelligence is not evenly distributed among individuals, and susceptibility to psyops and propaganda is a huge issue. The plain truth of the matter is that a majority of people simply aren’t qualified to weigh in on national issues. True democracy works when you’ve got a small group of like-minded individuals of roughly equal stature (13 original colonies) but not when you’ve got an entire empire (Roman republic)

Zigurd 2y ago

Direct election of the US president would be an improvement. Expanding the House of Representatives as originally formulated, or similarly, would help. Making the Senate reflect the population better by dividing populous states, and/or a statehood option for Puerto Rico and DC would help. Striking down gerrymanders would help. More contested down-ballot races would help. No excuse for the parties to not have strong organization and candidate recruitment at that level. No changes to laws needed for this.

renewiltord 2y ago

Well, it's a federation of states so you can't quite do that unless you abandon that conceit.

kibwen 2y ago
No, devolving powers to the states is what makes it a federation. Having a state-representative legislative chamber makes it a federation. Electing a federal president via popular vote does not indicate defederation any more than the existence of the House of Representatives does.
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  Electing a president via popular vote would give populous states disproportionate influence over the country compared to other states. That is important because the president could do obnoxious things against the best interest of any particular state, especially ones with less influence. The stuff happening to your home state is way more relevant to your life than your political party or special interests.
  - bryanlarsen 2y ago
    Arbitrary lines on maps are arbitrary. North & South Dakota are far more similar than north and south California.
    - wakawaka28 2y ago
      The lines on maps are not arbitrary. People decided them by choice and in some cases by force. You might feel no particular attachment to your state, but if another state decided that your state should be exploited in some way, your primary source of support would be your neighbors within those so-called arbitrary lines.
      - bryanlarsen 2y ago
        I used North and South Dakota for a reason. The only reason they were split was to hijack the Senate.
        wakawaka28 2y ago
        That is misleading. There was no state of Dakota. The two became states at the same time. Even Wikipedia says this: >Regionalist tensions between the northern and the southern parts of the territory were present since the beginning. So, the split was not likely about senate seats. It was about people getting along within each state.
  - Zigurd 2y ago
    > Electing a president via popular vote would give populous states disproportionate influence over the country compared to other states. It would give every human, who has the right to representation, exactly proportionate influence. The weird fashy retired cops in Idaho will have to settle for having the same number of senators as Californians have.
    - wakawaka28 2y ago
      That is not a good argument. People have a right to self-determination. The same logic of populism can be applied on a trans-national scale, even. There is no limit because under your logic, any person's vote is as good as any other's. The fact is we have states to provide a level of autonomy and independence to geographically separate groups of people, so they can live with more freedom. I don't care if the entire state of California is against how I live, because they are thousands of miles away and deserve less say in how I live than my neighbors. The federal system we have strikes a balance between the two. A president of a federation such as the US must represent the individual states equally, because there can only be one president and that seat has disproportionate power. I really think people flip flop on the popular vote issue based on whether they think it helps their particular party or not, which is unbelievably short-sighted.
- bitshiftfaced 2y ago
  The states negotiated terms before they agreed to join. Not having a popular vote is part of the reason why we have a federal system in the first place. People can argue pros and cons, but it's fairly meaningless since we're already in an established deal, and it's very unlikely that the many states will agree to undo that deal.
  - Apocryphon 2y ago
    Amending the Constitution does seem like a fairly remote possibility, but then there's also this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...

zarathustreal 2y ago

> we don’t have a one-person one-vote system. Correct, and that’s a good thing! Intelligence is not evenly distributed among individuals, and susceptibility to psyops and propaganda is a huge issue. The plain truth of the matter is that a majority of people simply aren’t qualified to weigh in on national issues. True democracy works when you’ve got a small group of like-minded individuals of roughly equal stature (13 original colonies) but not when you’ve got an entire empire (Roman republic)