4 ms·

Small states already don’t matter, with EC only “battleground” states matter; which feels way way worse. We also already have weird dynamics when it comes to p

Small states already don’t matter, with EC only “battleground” states matter; which feels way way worse. We also already have weird dynamics when it comes to policy. More people are likely employed by Wendy’s than all the coal workers, but something tells me that coal workers are given way more policy proposals to help them than fast food workers.

throwaway48476 2y ago
Any state with a near 50/50 vote can become a "battleground" state. Only states with one party autocratic rule lose out.
- azemetre 2y ago
  Not if you go by popular vote, not necessarily at least. There are millions of voters for the other political parties in say California, Texas, New York, Florida; none of these voters will get their voice heard because of how they typically vote (CA going blue, Texas going red). Popular vote ensures that all votes matter, not just whatever happens to be a battle ground state which change every 10 years or so. BTW saying that one party having a trifecta of governance as autocratic is fucking moronic and not accurate. Words have meaning, lets not diminish them because you're upset people don't vote how you want.
  - leereeves 2y ago
    Do you truly believe it would be preferable, if one party consistently wins 51% of the vote, and the other wins 49%, to have one party permanently in power? That (51% of votes translating into 100% of power) is certainly not fair either. One thing the current system does surprising well is ensure that power remains divided over the long term.
    - azemetre 2y ago
      Only if you define power as the length of a single human lifespan and not something that continues on when you exit our plane of existence. The US has gone through dozens of major political and regional political parties over the last 200 years. Acting like this is ossified is just demonstrably false. It sounds like you are more upset about the first-past-the-post voting system and that I agree with you.
      - throwaway48476 2y ago
        First past the post creates the two party system. The multi party parliamentary systems give far more power to the party leader to the extent that all tweets by liberal party members in Canada have to be approved by the leaders office. So instead of a MP that represents a constituency it ends up with only ~5 leaders that are allowed independent opinions.
  - throwaway48476 2y ago
    >Words have meaning, lets not diminish them because you're upset people don't vote how you want. I don't know how you twisted my words in your mind to insinuate I just want 'them' to vote for 'my' team. Governments that are dominated by one party, whether it be north korea, russia, or California tend to ossify and are controlled by party apparatchiks instead of democratically elected politicians. When there are multiple parties in close competition all parties are forced to be more responsive to the electorate.
    - azemetre 2y ago
      We're talking about the US here, please tell me which states are autocratic because at a cursory glance that is a brain dead response. Is Florida an autocratic state because the GOP control all three branches of government? Is Massachusetts an autocratic state because the Democratic party control all three branches of government? What about California, add in their jungle primaries as something that makes them extremely competitive when it comes to running elections, are they too autocratic because the Democratic politicians control all three branches? Sorry but words have meanings, just because you want to misuse them doesn't mean we have to accept it. You conflating autocracy with competitive elections is just foolish.
      - throwaway48476 2y ago
        I'm not. In China political struggle is hidden from the public and happens behind the scenes. Same thing happened in the Soviet Union. This made me interested in how autocratic political systems operate but there's not much scholarship on this. I found studying one party systems in America to be helpful in understanding the autocratic political system. In a one party rule state the senatorial/gubernatorial race is not competitive and always won by the one party in power. To appear on the ballot as a representative of that party requires the party endorsement. In effect the party endorsement is the election. However the endorsement process is controlled by the party and not open to the public. Endorsement selection is based primarily on how much money the prospective candidate can get their friends to donate. (From this money some percent is kicked back to the party and the rest is spent on services provided by party apparatchiks. It is a closed ecosystem). The other requirement is canonical adherence, though this is more required for national politics. How the parties work behind closed doors I'm less familiar with because im not an insider, in the Chinese communist party case or the American case.

throwaway48476 2y ago

Any state with a near 50/50 vote can become a "battleground" state. Only states with one party autocratic rule lose out.

azemetre 2y ago
Not if you go by popular vote, not necessarily at least. There are millions of voters for the other political parties in say California, Texas, New York, Florida; none of these voters will get their voice heard because of how they typically vote (CA going blue, Texas going red). Popular vote ensures that all votes matter, not just whatever happens to be a battle ground state which change every 10 years or so. BTW saying that one party having a trifecta of governance as autocratic is fucking moronic and not accurate. Words have meaning, lets not diminish them because you're upset people don't vote how you want.
- leereeves 2y ago
  Do you truly believe it would be preferable, if one party consistently wins 51% of the vote, and the other wins 49%, to have one party permanently in power? That (51% of votes translating into 100% of power) is certainly not fair either. One thing the current system does surprising well is ensure that power remains divided over the long term.
  - azemetre 2y ago
    Only if you define power as the length of a single human lifespan and not something that continues on when you exit our plane of existence. The US has gone through dozens of major political and regional political parties over the last 200 years. Acting like this is ossified is just demonstrably false. It sounds like you are more upset about the first-past-the-post voting system and that I agree with you.
    - throwaway48476 2y ago
      First past the post creates the two party system. The multi party parliamentary systems give far more power to the party leader to the extent that all tweets by liberal party members in Canada have to be approved by the leaders office. So instead of a MP that represents a constituency it ends up with only ~5 leaders that are allowed independent opinions.
- throwaway48476 2y ago
  >Words have meaning, lets not diminish them because you're upset people don't vote how you want. I don't know how you twisted my words in your mind to insinuate I just want 'them' to vote for 'my' team. Governments that are dominated by one party, whether it be north korea, russia, or California tend to ossify and are controlled by party apparatchiks instead of democratically elected politicians. When there are multiple parties in close competition all parties are forced to be more responsive to the electorate.
  - azemetre 2y ago
    We're talking about the US here, please tell me which states are autocratic because at a cursory glance that is a brain dead response. Is Florida an autocratic state because the GOP control all three branches of government? Is Massachusetts an autocratic state because the Democratic party control all three branches of government? What about California, add in their jungle primaries as something that makes them extremely competitive when it comes to running elections, are they too autocratic because the Democratic politicians control all three branches? Sorry but words have meanings, just because you want to misuse them doesn't mean we have to accept it. You conflating autocracy with competitive elections is just foolish.
    - throwaway48476 2y ago
      I'm not. In China political struggle is hidden from the public and happens behind the scenes. Same thing happened in the Soviet Union. This made me interested in how autocratic political systems operate but there's not much scholarship on this. I found studying one party systems in America to be helpful in understanding the autocratic political system. In a one party rule state the senatorial/gubernatorial race is not competitive and always won by the one party in power. To appear on the ballot as a representative of that party requires the party endorsement. In effect the party endorsement is the election. However the endorsement process is controlled by the party and not open to the public. Endorsement selection is based primarily on how much money the prospective candidate can get their friends to donate. (From this money some percent is kicked back to the party and the rest is spent on services provided by party apparatchiks. It is a closed ecosystem). The other requirement is canonical adherence, though this is more required for national politics. How the parties work behind closed doors I'm less familiar with because im not an insider, in the Chinese communist party case or the American case.