3 ms·

I wouldn't say the US Senate and Electoral College make much sense.

• bigstrat2003 2y ago
  I think they make an incredible amount of sense. The population centers don't deserve to dictate how the entire country works just because they pack a ton of people in. For the Senate, it's important to have a body where all the sovereign states get equal say, because after all they are supposed to be the primary unit of government. Not only that, but the fact that there's equal representation in the Senate is the social contract on which this country is founded, without which California wouldn't even exist. The electoral college is flawed but I also find it better than the alternative. It's important that the president should represent a wide variety of perspectives in the country, not just pander to the population of the n biggest cities and call it a day. The people living in small or unimportant states deserve to have a president who gives a damn about them, too. Ultimately I think both of these mechanisms are important ones to ensure that the country doesn't turn into a classic tyranny of the majority, which is something I value quite a bit.
  • janalsncm 2y ago
    As it stands a person in California has less say than a person in Wyoming. Yes California as a group has more say but that is to be expected because it has more people.
  • CalRobert 2y ago
    “Rural centers don't deserve to dictate how the entire country works just because they pack a ton of land in” Also works though
• perilunar 2y ago
  In Australia we had a Prime Minister publicly refer to our Senate as “unrepresentative swill”.
  • robocat 2y ago
    Try New Zealand. 40% of our members of parliament are selected by the parties, without true voter representation. Under MMP, 120 MPs are elected to Parliament — 72 are elected by just the voters in individual electorates around the country and 48 are from political party lists