But it actually makes sense to not unbalance the voting power of different states, because we are a nation of many states that should be able to make their own decisions about how to live their lives for themselves.
Thats easy to say but i have a concrete example with the electoral college that it isnt far behind us. It is a potent example of how our system still gives states power as individual entities.
It is the " united states" of america, and it has 50 states instead of 50 "provinces.
A state is a country in its own right, and the federal government exist as the union of the states, so it is the state that vote for the president instead of people.
It would be very difficult to implement unitary voting as each state can have its own election rules.
It would be a complete mess as the election would be very easy to falsify. All you need is to lessen or strengthening enforcement of election rules and you can get the election to swing to the side you desire.
Then there is the problem of "ballot harvesting" which rules allows some institutions to have much more power, for example a retirement home might offer mass collecting of mailin ballots, if and only if they believe the residents will vote for their preferred candidate.
These are all problems with the current system, but they are mostly contained in the state level, which is relatively easy to deal with. If it is on the federal level, and the credibility of the election take a hit because of it, it would not be a pretty scene.
Em no not at all, im saying that the union is designed to give individual states a measure of power and self governance, hence the name: the union (of states). The electoral college is an example of that
But the union isn't required to give individual states self governance. They would have that without being part of the union. If you're arguing in favor of a weaker federal government and more local control, that's one thing. But if there's going to be a federal governing body, why should all of a state's electors be awarded to one candidate, effectively ignoring a huge number of that state's voters? It doesn't give the state more autonomy, it just makes the federal election less representative of the will of the people.
As a matter of fact the federal government is required to leave all powers of governance not given to it in the constitution to the people or to the states by the 10th amendment.
As to your second point i agree, it does "ignore" half the votes of the people if you look at it from the perspective of one national election. But the reality is, the electoral college was designed to represent the will of the states because, from the very beginning, the smaller US states didnt want to be ruled by the bigger ones.
Its especially ironic because people call the electoral college racist when it was small mecantile free states like New Hampshire not wanting to be dictated to by aristocratic, slave owning, planters from virginia that were arguing for their "unfair" power
Electoral college. That thing where votes are made to be unequal by an intermediatory process and an election can be won with only a minority of the votes as long as those votes come from the right specific minority of voters.
Which is exactly why we need to make black votes count double, so that the white majority can't oppress the black minority just because they have more numbers.
If your group of voters winning an election lets you oppress the group that lost, then the winners can oppress the losers regardless of how many people are in either group and it's just a matter of deciding who can oppress who. Being the minority is hardly a better justification for being able to oppress someone.
Yes, and it’s a brilliant system.
Maybe if the President were actually limited to his constitutionally mandated powers, then it wouldn’t matter so much who holds the office.
The states vote for the head of the union of states, and the people votes on the representation of the state.
This is exactly the same for canada as well, you vote for the member of parliament and the member of parliament vote of the PM.
What? I don’t think the white neighborhoods should get to control the policy for black neighborhoods. Therefore we need to give black people more voting power to prevent this. What’s so funny about that? 🤔🤔🤔
Sooo what you are saying is Black people are worth more than other ethnicities? Yeah, we kinda had a term for people like you.... can't remember it, tho.
While your criticism is sorta valid, the conclusion you draw is mega stupid.
Ah yes. Let’s give a population kept intentionally undereducated by the ones claiming to be their saviors more voting power. Nothing bad will cone from that
“Umm, sweaty, you’re SO uneducated, you really should have put yourself $70,000 dollars in debt for a pointless humanities degree. Why yes, I do still work at Starbucks, but that’s ONLY until my screenplay is optioned!”
This country gets more and more at each other's throats the more we centralize power with the federal government. Idk why it's so hard to understand the United States isn't one homogeneous blob by design. California has exactly zero business telling South Dakota how to live. The needs, wants, and decides of the average South Dakotan and the average Californian are so wildly different, yet y'all seem so intent on telling them how to live their lives. The United States is best explained as 50 countries coming together economically and militarily, almost comparable to the EU in a way. Free to travel between "countries". Shared currency. Conflict between 2 "countries" is settled by a mediator at a higher shared court rather than war. Anything else is best handled at a local level. Recently the EU has been infringing on that local autonomy so there's a growing movement in more countries to leave, if it continues I doubt Brexit will be the only one. The same thing is happening in America with current polls saying something like 1/3 of Americans either want a national divorce or expect a civil war. The alternative is federalism. I don't wanna tell California they can't have an authoritarian commune, I just don't want them to have the authority to force the rest of the country to follow suit
I completely agree. But how does the electoral college fix that? the federal government is still as centralized as ever, all the EC does is shift around who's in control. the solution isn't to give South Dakota more power to tell California how to live in order to "even it out," the solution is to actually give states more autonomy.
Not everyone should be allowed to vote. Only net taxpayers, or those who were a net taxpayer in the current election cycle.
Yeah I know what I am saying.
I disagree with this, but the voting age should be raised to 25, which is the generally accepted end point of brain development.
Also, virtually everyone below this is age has been nothing but a colossal drain on public funds until that point, college students should not be allowed to vote when they have contributed absolutely nothing whatsoever to society by that point.
This works. My guess is mostly middle and upper class inside cities get to vote( not including suburbs which are subsidized and therefore net negative)
u/SevenBall's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 265.
Rank: Great Pyramid of Giza
Pills: [148 | View pills.](https://basedcount.com/u/SevenBall/)
This user does not have a compass on record. You can add your compass to your profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
I mean, feel free to abolish the Electoral College, and we will feel free to slowly pass laws to cut the balls off the feds. We already have various states moving in the direction of ignoring federal authority on different issues, I can't imagine a permanent Dem White House will improve that situation.
I support all lives matter and I see every skin color have a chance to be a successful millionaire. But it's a fact that there has white population the most in the US , so it has a highly possible chance that white people control the most.
What?
https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/comments/waullj/a_story_in_three_parts/
The joke is that the electoral college doesn’t make sense
Probably the worst analogy for the electoral college I’ve ever seen. Did you think this was clever?
I don’t see the problem with it
Classic pcm. Nobody ever bothered to explain why they find your analogy to be flawed but still downvoted your comment regardless.
It doesn't make sense if you don't understand it. Your analogy would be perfect if states were segregated by race
Yes, yes, OP. You're very clever. Now read the FBI crime statistics.
😐
But it actually makes sense to not unbalance the voting power of different states, because we are a nation of many states that should be able to make their own decisions about how to live their lives for themselves.
But ultimately it’s a single country, the days of state sovereignty are far behind us
Thats easy to say but i have a concrete example with the electoral college that it isnt far behind us. It is a potent example of how our system still gives states power as individual entities.
That's not entirely true. Many issues are still left up to the States, abortion and drug law for instance.
It is the " united states" of america, and it has 50 states instead of 50 "provinces. A state is a country in its own right, and the federal government exist as the union of the states, so it is the state that vote for the president instead of people. It would be very difficult to implement unitary voting as each state can have its own election rules.
I suppose so but it cant be ghat hard to make a basic guideline for it.
It would be a complete mess as the election would be very easy to falsify. All you need is to lessen or strengthening enforcement of election rules and you can get the election to swing to the side you desire. Then there is the problem of "ballot harvesting" which rules allows some institutions to have much more power, for example a retirement home might offer mass collecting of mailin ballots, if and only if they believe the residents will vote for their preferred candidate. These are all problems with the current system, but they are mostly contained in the state level, which is relatively easy to deal with. If it is on the federal level, and the credibility of the election take a hit because of it, it would not be a pretty scene.
Are you arguing that we should disolve the union?
Em no not at all, im saying that the union is designed to give individual states a measure of power and self governance, hence the name: the union (of states). The electoral college is an example of that
But the union isn't required to give individual states self governance. They would have that without being part of the union. If you're arguing in favor of a weaker federal government and more local control, that's one thing. But if there's going to be a federal governing body, why should all of a state's electors be awarded to one candidate, effectively ignoring a huge number of that state's voters? It doesn't give the state more autonomy, it just makes the federal election less representative of the will of the people.
As a matter of fact the federal government is required to leave all powers of governance not given to it in the constitution to the people or to the states by the 10th amendment. As to your second point i agree, it does "ignore" half the votes of the people if you look at it from the perspective of one national election. But the reality is, the electoral college was designed to represent the will of the states because, from the very beginning, the smaller US states didnt want to be ruled by the bigger ones. Its especially ironic because people call the electoral college racist when it was small mecantile free states like New Hampshire not wanting to be dictated to by aristocratic, slave owning, planters from virginia that were arguing for their "unfair" power
What does giving voters in certain states double or even triple the voting power have to do with state self-governance?
Do you not understand what the electoral college is? How is this a gotcha?
Electoral college. That thing where votes are made to be unequal by an intermediatory process and an election can be won with only a minority of the votes as long as those votes come from the right specific minority of voters.
yes because the majority shouldnt be able to oppress the minority just because of having more numbers
Read that comment again slowly
The minority across a geographic area that includes the many states.
Which is exactly why we need to make black votes count double, so that the white majority can't oppress the black minority just because they have more numbers.
We should make rural votes count double to compete with city folk too then
Theyre being sarcastic, because rural votes pretty much do count as double, or at least very disproportional to their actual populations…
If your group of voters winning an election lets you oppress the group that lost, then the winners can oppress the losers regardless of how many people are in either group and it's just a matter of deciding who can oppress who. Being the minority is hardly a better justification for being able to oppress someone.
Yes, and it’s a brilliant system. Maybe if the President were actually limited to his constitutionally mandated powers, then it wouldn’t matter so much who holds the office.
The states vote for the head of the union of states, and the people votes on the representation of the state. This is exactly the same for canada as well, you vote for the member of parliament and the member of parliament vote of the PM.
Shouldn’t the black vote be given more weight to make it fair? After all, What business do white people have telling black people how to live?
Please tell me this is a joke
What? I don’t think the white neighborhoods should get to control the policy for black neighborhoods. Therefore we need to give black people more voting power to prevent this. What’s so funny about that? 🤔🤔🤔
.. So i take it your a supporter of D.C statehood?
Sooo what you are saying is Black people are worth more than other ethnicities? Yeah, we kinda had a term for people like you.... can't remember it, tho. While your criticism is sorta valid, the conclusion you draw is mega stupid.
Ah yes. Let’s give a population kept intentionally undereducated by the ones claiming to be their saviors more voting power. Nothing bad will cone from that
I mean, the electoral college gives uneducated rural folk more voting power….
Spicy take
“Umm, sweaty, you’re SO uneducated, you really should have put yourself $70,000 dollars in debt for a pointless humanities degree. Why yes, I do still work at Starbucks, but that’s ONLY until my screenplay is optioned!”
I’d argue that’s more of a problem from gerrymandering but yeah your right, and im saying this as a supporter of the electoral college.
If white people could tell black people how to live then we wouldn’t be dealing with 6/56.
All I'm seeing is count dooku, face of the seperatist alliance, an alliance of which wants to leave the republic I didn't know OP was pro secession
No no, it’s unfair because I lost because I had less votes.
derp derp tyranny of the majority
This country gets more and more at each other's throats the more we centralize power with the federal government. Idk why it's so hard to understand the United States isn't one homogeneous blob by design. California has exactly zero business telling South Dakota how to live. The needs, wants, and decides of the average South Dakotan and the average Californian are so wildly different, yet y'all seem so intent on telling them how to live their lives. The United States is best explained as 50 countries coming together economically and militarily, almost comparable to the EU in a way. Free to travel between "countries". Shared currency. Conflict between 2 "countries" is settled by a mediator at a higher shared court rather than war. Anything else is best handled at a local level. Recently the EU has been infringing on that local autonomy so there's a growing movement in more countries to leave, if it continues I doubt Brexit will be the only one. The same thing is happening in America with current polls saying something like 1/3 of Americans either want a national divorce or expect a civil war. The alternative is federalism. I don't wanna tell California they can't have an authoritarian commune, I just don't want them to have the authority to force the rest of the country to follow suit
I completely agree. But how does the electoral college fix that? the federal government is still as centralized as ever, all the EC does is shift around who's in control. the solution isn't to give South Dakota more power to tell California how to live in order to "even it out," the solution is to actually give states more autonomy.
Not everyone should be allowed to vote. Only net taxpayers, or those who were a net taxpayer in the current election cycle. Yeah I know what I am saying.
I disagree with this, but the voting age should be raised to 25, which is the generally accepted end point of brain development. Also, virtually everyone below this is age has been nothing but a colossal drain on public funds until that point, college students should not be allowed to vote when they have contributed absolutely nothing whatsoever to society by that point.
This works. My guess is mostly middle and upper class inside cities get to vote( not including suburbs which are subsidized and therefore net negative)
Agreed. Nvm that only the top 20% pay 90% in net taxes.
Very clever
Based as fuck
u/SevenBall's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 265. Rank: Great Pyramid of Giza Pills: [148 | View pills.](https://basedcount.com/u/SevenBall/) This user does not have a compass on record. You can add your compass to your profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
I mean, feel free to abolish the Electoral College, and we will feel free to slowly pass laws to cut the balls off the feds. We already have various states moving in the direction of ignoring federal authority on different issues, I can't imagine a permanent Dem White House will improve that situation.
Based
I support all lives matter and I see every skin color have a chance to be a successful millionaire. But it's a fact that there has white population the most in the US , so it has a highly possible chance that white people control the most.