6 ms·
> elimination of electoral college We absolutely do not need that. Reform perhaps, but not elimination. The country is full of many different people with diffe
by bigstrat2003 8mo ago
> elimination of electoral college
We absolutely do not need that. Reform perhaps, but not elimination. The country is full of many different people with differing needs, and a president should have an incentive to balance those needs. The country would be a much worse place if the top N cities got to impose their will on the rest of the country which is nothing like them.
- xnx 8mo ago> The country would be a much worse place if the top N cities got to impose their will on the rest of the country which is nothing like them. Better for the bottom N states by population to impose their will on the rest of the country which is nothing like them?
- jjav 8mo agoCities and states do not have needs or feelings. Humans do. The electoral college is deeply unfair system where humans in low population states have far more say than others. Everyone should have equal say.
- recursivecaveat 8mo agoI don't think having the small minority of swing states repeatedly determine the elections is doing anything for balance. The notion that the electoral college exists to balance rural and urban interests is a total fiction. Urban populations were at 5% in 1790, it wasn't on anybody's mind. The present effect is totally arbitrary and inconsistent. You may as well define a college where every religion gets an equal say: why should the atheists and Christians get to impose their will on the Sikhs and Druze? Just because there are more Christians who are nothing like them?