this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2024
680 points (98.6% liked)

politics

19148 readers
2012 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 118 points 4 months ago (7 children)

I get that the Electoral College was originally designed to give smaller states an equal say. But, when Los Angeles county has more population than like 10 states combined, things are getting ridiculous.

California has like 67 times the population of Wyoming... yet they each have two senators. And that keeps increasing.

Our government is not a good representation of the populace.

[–] [email protected] 63 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The number of people was a political compromise between individual rights and States rights, but so was a Senate and House.

The electoral college was primarily designed to enable states to vote despite a communication delay that could take months.

It did great at that, actually. How would California have up to date info on what's going on in Washington when the fastest mode of travel was a horse? It wouldn't.

Instead of voting based on information that's outdated and potentially inaccurate, best to pick some people you trust to vote in your interests, and send them to Washington. Let them get caught up, and vote how they will as your representative.

Then States can sort out their own voting time and method, with no real concern for it being simultaneous or consistent because news travels so slow anyway. The important thing was authorized people would show up by the expected federal voting time, and if that happened, everyone did well enough.

Of course, now they can cast their vote without leaving the state, and coordination is possible, but here we are holding the bag on a lack of accounting for technological progress.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I agree with your ultimate premise, that technological advances have all but eliminated the need for the Ec. But, my man, the telegraph predates CA as a state.

The EC was also for many reasons, but pertaining to the point were talking about, it was because they were afraid people would just campaign in cities because that would be the most efficient. The EC forces a wider appeal.

But with the ability to reach everyone, everywhere, instantly, this fear that they only campaign in cities is gone.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 4 months ago

Also, the electoral college only shifts the focus from cities to major swing states (and even then, cities within those states).

But more importantly, why the fuck should potential campaign strategies affect the strength of my vote?

[–] [email protected] 25 points 4 months ago

It was originally designed to give slave owners a greater say than people in free states, since EC representation is mainly based on the number of representatives you have in the House, and the slave state representative count was inflated by the 3/5 compromise.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Instead of having a forever constitution that was great and new 200 years ago when the internet and modern transportation and communications didn't exist .... they should regularly overhaul the entire government every hundred years to keep up with the times.

I'm in Canada and they should do the same here.

We can't possibly think that everything we see, think and believe today will be applicable to people living 100, 200 years from now.

We look at 200 year old laws about horses and we laugh at it. 200 years from now, our descendants will laugh at what we're debating today.

The only reason to maintain the status quo is to protect the power and privilege of a few powerful and wealthy people. It never has anything to do with the goodwill of the people.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 4 months ago (1 children)
  1. Every fifty years. Jefferson for all his faults thought it should be that frequent.
[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

Gotta refresh that tree of liberty from time to time.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 4 months ago

California has like 67 times the population of Wyoming... yet they each have two senators. And that keeps increasing.

The worst part about the legislative branch is that Congress also acted to handicap the House of Representatives. It was supposed to be the body based on population. And you may say "Well California has 52 and Wyoming only 1 so that's proportional." But the original intent was no more than 30,000 constituents per representative. So based on a quick look at the 2020 population figures, Wyoming should have 19 while California should have ~1,317. (That would also be equivalent to California having 69 representatives to Wyoming's current 1.)

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

"...designed to give smaller states an equal say..."

Not quite...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

California has like 67 times the population of Wyoming... yet they each have two senators.

But they have way more representatives. That was the point of separation of power, to limit federal power, while California does have a state legislature that can do most of what it wants.

The issue is that congress can regulate anything as "interstate commerce"

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

No it was designed by slave holding states to be sure that the free states up north didn’t have the power to end slavery.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/electoral-colleges-racist-origins