politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Please define illegitimate electoral college.
In 1929, Congress passed the Reapportionment Act, loving the House of Representatives at 435. Due to population growth in largely coastal states, and the requirement of at least one Representative per state, the House, which was intended to provide representation proportional to population, instead give a significant amount of power to states with lower population densities, resulting in a tendency towards minority rule in the House. Since the number of Electoral College votes are proportional to a state's delegation to Congress, this also gives low-population states an outsized influence over the Presidential election, contrary to the intent of the US Constitution.
Sure
The electoral college allows states with far less people to have the same amount of power as those with far denser populations
It made sense in the past but no longer, and instead at times goes against the majority will of the people a la Trump and many previous examples
It never made sense. It was literally created to make sure voters could be overruled in the event the ruling class (party insiders) disagreed with their choice. It was justified to stop “mob rule” also known as the will of we the people.
It did make sense, but I understand why it might not seem like it to "modern Americans". In fact, it's quite an interesting mental challenge of putting yourself in someone else's shoes.
We have a similar issue today in the EU. Do we base it one "one country, one vote" or on "one person, one vote"? Both sides of the argument is valid. Why would small countries join if they give up complete independence to the giants? I imagine the situation was very similar when the US was formed.
I think the flaw in the US system is they failed to forsee that states (or rather, people) would see themselves as one country and not a collection of countries. There should have been a time limit on the discrepancy of voting power.
Sure, for a hundred years, a state is where your loyalty, your feeling of self, your center is at. But as time moves on, you are less an Ohioian and more of s USian. Similarly, I would hope, you are less of a German and more of an EUian.
Neither blocks seem to have taken this into consideration but it makes it none the less true. Future generations paying the price for previous. Yada yada....
No, it never made sense because it never accomplished its stated purpose. It only ever suppressed the will of the majority.
It served its purpose though. It created a union.
I think a big reason why turning Texas Blue is such a priority, once that happens the GOP will be glad to get rid of the electoral college.
I agree with you that it's outdated and a terrible fit.
Until we effectively replace it in law, unfortunately, it's literally not illegitimate.
He can’t, he already used all of his brain power to spell illegitimate.
The electoral college allows states with far less people to have the same amount of power as those with far denser populations
It’s not rocket science, and yes I trust spellcheck too much