To me, it seems It's not about who has the most votes. So who cares about the will of the people. It's all about swing states.
Any other things I'm missing?
Any other things I'm missing?
To me, it seems It's not about who has the most votes. So who cares about the will of the people. It's all about swing states.
Any other things I'm missing?
LMAO, guy thinks the confederacy would've given black people the right to vote. Anything less would not truly be democracy."democracy" was a cancerous idea from the start mostly driven by the same people who pushed for slavery, and the same people who complain about the electoral college now.
In extreme situations, it is anti-democratic. Let's say we have 99% of the population in California, and the rest of the 1% spread around the country. The 49 other states' 1% would control the 99% (I'm sure someone will say that's how it already is with the rich 1% controlling everyone, but that's a different topic).
The house kind of makes up for it by giving more representatives per state. Although the senate only has two per state.
The solutions are
1. To motivate people to move to other areas and spread the voters, unfortunately nobody wants to move to the middle of nowhere.
2. Upend the electoral system to rely on the popular vote, which will not happen in our lifetime, as it would be a death sentence for right wing people. The last time they won the popular vote was with Bush Jr, and that was just barely, and with the boost of everyone coming together after 9/11.
You think it's terrible because the Republican party would never win another federal election under a truly democratic system. The reality is that you'd have a party, or multiple parties, more willing to address your own needs rather than the needs of the ruling class exclusively. More choices, and better choices. Right now you're settling for less than the bare minimum without even realizing it.this is why i said its good to ignore democracy, its terrible anyway.
So, King Biden then?this is why i said its good to ignore democracy, its terrible anyway.
Great point! Very researched and well presented.this is why i said its good to ignore democracy, its terrible anyway.
I think these are the two main things that matter and why the Electoral College makes sense.To me, it seems It's not about who has the most votes. So who cares about the will of the people. It's all about swing states.
Any other things I'm missing?
Except that's not true: blue cities in red states are largely ignored, and red towns in blue states are largely ignored. Without the electoral college, one person would have one vote, and it would always be counted equally toward the outcome regardless of how the majority in their state votes.Balances Different Regions: The Electoral College makes sure that both big cities and small towns across the U.S. get attention in presidential elections, so no area is ignored.
The majority of votes would always win, regardless of where those votes came from. The group that currently has too much power in choosing the president makes up less than 1% of the population, and the electoral college makes it far easier/cheaper for them than it should be. It also locks us into the flawed two-party system perpetually.Checks and Balances: It's part of the system to prevent any one group from having too much power in choosing the President, ensuring that even states with fewer people have a say; otherwise large population cities would always win and alienate people like Farmers, Urban voters, and people who live in states that are not so populous.
You think it's terrible because the Republican party would never win another federal election under a truly democratic system. The reality is that you'd have a party, or multiple parties, more willing to address your own needs rather than the needs of the ruling class exclusively. More choices, and better choices. Right now you're settling for less than the bare minimum without even realizing it.
So, King Biden then?
Great point! Very researched and well presented.
No Republican candidate for president has won the popular vote since George H.W. Bush. You're free to confirm that with a simple search yourself. I'm not counting GWB's second term since he lost Florida the first time around and SCOTUS handed him the election anyway.do you have a source on that?
Then you shouldn't have any qualms about replacing it with something better. Step one would be eliminating the electoral college.i hate the republican party
No Republican candidate for president has won the popular vote since George H.W. Bush. You're free to confirm that with a simple search yourself. I'm not counting GWB's second term since he lost Florida the first time around and SCOTUS handed him the election anyway.
Then you shouldn't have any qualms about replacing it with something better. Step one would be eliminating the electoral college.
The things you've said.i meant a source on me being a republican
You might as well claim that you can become a billionaire by Xeroxing $100 dollar bills while you're at it.i have huge qualms, i do not condone shorting xerox every november.
The things you've said.
You might as well claim that you can become a billionaire by Xeroxing $100 dollar bills while you're at it.
You'd have to be an idiot to believe you could get away with Xeroxing ballots, measures preventing that have been in place since copiers were invented. Better?i mean i certainly could claim, that, just like you could claim you could make a comparison without intentionally being obtuse