Comment

Comment on Majority of Americans continue to favor moving away from Electoral College

If two or three states end up picking the president, you’re going to have a problem where some geographical regions have disproportionate choice over who runs the country.

Moving away from the electoral college to something like STAR/approval voting would move us away from geographically weighted votes, which means that no such thing would happen. All voters would have equal representation.

Instead we currently have a system where a disproportionate amount of power is given to a select few states with fewer people. Tyranny of the minority is not acceptable. All votes should be equal.

source

Sort:hotnew top

sj_zero ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
So would you abolish the senate as well, with its 2 seats per state to ensure that each state is represented equally?

If you're going to have a few regions basically having total dominion over who controls the country, why would the other state want to remain in such a union? The reason for the way things are set up is that different regions in the US had to be convinced to join the union in the first place. The farmers were concerned that the cities would have all the power. Start stripping away stuff intended to prevent a couple geographical areas from totally dominating the discussion and you will end up getting a couple geographical areas from totally dominating the discussion. That might work for a bit, but you could very well see it eventually causes a revolt and the end of the union since there's no point being involved with a thing like that.

The President is not the representative of the 10 largest cities in America, they're a representative of all of America. With the current system, a presidential candidate needs to convince people from all around the country that they're the person to be president. With a pure equal voting system, presidential candidates would never spend any time at all in most states, and wouldn't have anything in their campaign to help most states.
- PizzaMan@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  
  So would you abolish the senate as well, with its 2 seats per state to ensure that each state is represented equally?
  
  I wouldn’t abolish it, I think the number of senators per state should reflect the population of a given state.
  
  If you’re going to have a few regions basically having total dominion over who controls the country, why would the other state want to remain in such a union?
  
  Why would big states want to remain in a union in which smaller states hold more power than they otherwise would in a system that holds all votes equal?
  
  The system we have already incentivizes the dissolution of the union.
  
  And the big states would not have total domination, because states don’t (or at least shouldn’t) vote, people do. You do realize that a significant number of people in these big states vote red, right? So there would be no domination.
  
  That might work for a bit, but you could very well see it eventually causes a revolt and the end of the union since there’s no point being involved with a thing like that.
  
  Our current system has historically been terrible for avoiding revolt.
  
  The President is not the representative of the 10 largest cities in America,
  
  And the president still wouldn’t be under a system that holds all votes equal. Because cities are not the only thing that exist.
  
  Your whole argument is basically “We can’t have tyranny of the majority, we must maintain our current system of tyranny of the minority!” all while ignoring that all votes being equal is in fact not a form of tyranny by the majority.
  
  With the current system, a presidential candidate needs to convince people from all around the country that they’re the person to be president
  
  No they don’t. They just need to convince the swing states. And that’s all they do, spend time in swing states campaigning. They might go to stronghold states on occasion for funding, but other than that 90% of the time they’re in swing states.
  
  presidential candidates would never spend any time at all in most states, and wouldn’t have anything in their campaign to help most states.
  
  I live in a swing state. EVERY election, both candidates visit my city. Do you know what they don’t do? They don’t ever visit the surrounding states. They don’t ever stop by the smaller towns in my state. It’s only ever my city and 1-2 others for the entire state, then they skip off on a jet to the next swing state, flying over other states in the process.
  
  The current system has all of the problems you are concerned about an equal vote system having.
  
  source
  - sj_zero ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    There's multiple systems. The house of representatives is basically your democratic vote is a vote part of the government. The senate is the every state is an equal partner thing, and the executive is something where there's some weighting by population but also some counterweighting for balance, and that's in between.
    
    Breaking up larger countries into different regional nations makes sense to me, btw. Then the blue states won't need to worry about subsidizing the red states, they'll all have to figure their thing out for themselves.
    
    PizzaMan@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    
    There’s multiple systems
    
    I am aware.
    
    Breaking up larger countries into different regional nations makes sense to me, btw.
    
    Oddly, that exact move has been a disaster for Britain. We should not follow suit.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments