• Zeppo@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    You are still missing who votes. You seem to think you vote, but it is really the state that votes.

    Uh… no, that’s my point. If electors are selected by a popular vote, that’s the vote. Very rare for electors to switch candidates.

    This states thing is a questionable proxy system. We are sort of, theoretically, a republic of states. Sure. However, it’s a flawed system that isn’t quite relevant to how the country has developed. It’s silly to act like a system invented 250 years ago will always be the best or most effective. The founders of the country didn’t expect for the systems to never change. They also didn’t expect a party duopoly and hoped to avoid the current situation.

    Anyway, it’s clearly not purely a ‘states vote’ situation since it votes are weighed by population. A pure one state, one vote situation would be like that. Texas Republicans recently had a brilliant idea like that where each county would have one vote, which is obviously absurdly anti-democratic - imagine 4 million people in Houston having the same vote as 72 people in some tiny county.

    • Neuromancer@lemm.eeM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Uh… no, that’s my point. If electors are selected by a popular vote, that’s the vote. Very rare for electors to switch candidates

      Because 33 states have made laws which I think are unconditional. The electors are a check and balance of the system. The idea is to prevent the wrong type of person being elected.

      They also didn’t expect a party duopoly and hoped to avoid the current situation

      Not they did did. That’s something very uniquely American that grew and stuck. It’s a shame. More parties would be better.

      anti-democratic

      Our system was designed to be anti-democratic. We were designed to be a republic.

      If we were a democracy, being gay would still be a crime. We don’t want that. We have the constitution to help balance things out. People could vote for really bad ideas that destroy the country.

      • Zeppo@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        i would love more parties and more choices. If we could get something besides FPTP voting that would be great.

        • Neuromancer@lemm.eeM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          I’m not a democrat. I’m not a racist weirdo. So I’d never fit in.

          I’m old school Republican but the party has taken a turn to just be an opposition party rather than actually having ideas.

          I fully support abortion publicly which makes me an outlier in the party. I don’t care if anyone is gay or trans which make me an outlier with the religious right. I’m for less spending which makes me an outlier with both parties.

          There really isn’t a viable party that economically conservative and socially more liberal. Some people say libertarians but most of them are just anti-tax people and I’m not opposed to taxes. There is a difference in wanting the lowest tax possible and those who oppose all taxes.