Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
They had a higher probability of winning and they took full advantage of that, yes.
Yes. That's how it's done in all other modern democracies that I know of including my own. I don't understand this idea that population density must result in devaluing one's vote. It's punishing the cities for existing. That just because you live in the city your power should be diminished because other people chose to live in Bumbuck, Iowa. Like, what does your residence have to do with anything? It's a foreign concept to me. Like, you're not even hurting, you're just upset that your views aren't those of the nation.
Not to mention that's a curious mindset to have. It implies that people in the city can't be trusted to decide an election despite their candidates being great. Coincidentally, most of the people in the cities are POC and I find that to be more than a coincidence. I'm inclined to think it's yet another tool used to disenfranchise Black voters and suppress minorities given the US's notoriously racist history. We even got threads on this site expressing how that fixation on race makes us foreigners uncomfortable.
Yes, it works great in favor of Republicans by tipping the scale. I'm surprised you replied with that given how I just explained that it's a rigged system and you said, yes it's wonderful...
What you are proposing gives complete power of the elections to small spheres of influence in the US. Candidates only have to appease to people who live in the cities to win. I don't see how this can be seen as a good thing. The current system forces candidates to get both the rural and urban residents' votes to win.