View Single Post
Old 08-22-2019, 10:31 PM
Ají de Gallina's Avatar
Ají de Gallina is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lima, Perú
Posts: 4,548
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
And replaces it with the problem of our elections being decided by a whote paste in the middle of the country. There is more diversity of interests between the different neighborhoods of the city of Los Angeles, then there is between the states of Montana, Wyoming and North and South Dakota.
Sure, but it's a feature, not a bug, of the EC.

Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
No, one person, one vote isn't "semantics." "Semantics" is making the case that the majority of voters should find their results disproportionately reduced by an arcane system of squiggles and geography.
All states have "one person, one vote" as far as I know.

Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
There’s no plausible scenario in which a “few cities” on each coast can prevail against a consensus within the rest of the country. The numbers just don’t add up.
If the US was like Peru, where you have NO idea which party will win or even exist in a year's time, you'd be right. In the US, something like 80-85% of the votes are already in, no matter the candidate. So, yes, a relatively small number of people can shift elections.

I’m not even getting into the issue of how this silly electoral system undermines “one person, one vote.”

The US is a republic, not a democracy. "One man, one vote" still exists, by the way, with the EC.

Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
This is a common right wing trope..
Since i haven't made such a claim, I don't feel the need to say anything about it.

Somehow the logic is that the more land that your voters are spread over, the more your vote ought to count. It's a bunch of crap, and its proponents can't even get the facts straight.
Yup, it's a sort of electoral affirmative action, it's a feature, not a bug.

Christ. Counties don't vote. Land doesn't vote. It's the people who vote, but this current system gives rural votes much disproportionate power than what they should have.
The expression "cities vote" has a clear meaning that is clearly understood. You just want to obfuscate.

Originally Posted by asahi View Post
If you want to have a system of weighting rural or state votes versus urban voting, that's one thing. What I'm telling you is having 538 electors completely free to do whatever the fuck they want once they show up to cast their ballots on behalf of millions of voters is a powderkeg and a fuse looking for a struck match.
That's why the selection of such people is of utmost importance and it should be done carefully. However, they can vote as they see fit, that's how it was designed. The US electoral system is astonishingly strong and it has produced the most stable one.

Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
It's only a problem is you don't believe in democracy.
Since the US is a republic and not a democracy, it shouldn't be a problem.

Democracy is supposed to be whoever gets the most votes wins. If sixty percent of the people live in cities, then they should be winning elections. We shouldn't have a system that's rigged so the forty percent who live outside of cities win.
See previous answer.

Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I'm just looking at the historical record. Republicans are generally the ones who rig elections.