this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2024
1049 points (99.1% liked)

politics

19047 readers
4000 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.
  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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
(page 4) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 106 points 2 weeks ago (8 children)

I remember being in 3rd grade and learning about the electoral college and thinking, "that's the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard of". Still true to this day.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I've had the same reaction learning about religion 😂

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 26 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I dunno. I kinda think it’s cool that a state twenty times smaller than my own (Alaska, California) gets an equal share of say to my own. /s

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

California electoral votes: 55

Alaska electoral votes: 3

[–] [email protected] 25 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

California - population 39 million 0.000000128205128 votes per capita

Alaska - population 734 thousand - 0.00000408719 votes per capita

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

So Alaskans count ~3x as much as Californians.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

If the numbers are correct, it would mean about 30 times more influence, not 3

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 68 points 2 weeks ago (14 children)

That’s great but do an electoral college majority want to end the electoral college?

[–] [email protected] 33 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah this headline is like "animals disapprove of farm"

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Can't believe Americans have become so anti-education.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

Given there are only two major institutions that are capable of winning under the current rules, one of the two institutions figured out it's advantageous not to have highly educated constituents.

Over the period of about two generations they've managed to rig it so that only the upper class can manage to get a fair education. So the poor malleable people will vote for whoever they're told to vote for, and the ultra-rich will vote for the side that is most advantageous to them.

In a time where we should be trying to get as much education into every living being that we can, degenerates are using a lack of education as a wedge to stay in power.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

stupid is as stupid does.

I'm not sure why this is surprising to you.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I think this is a "college" joke, not a political statement. Enhanced by the joke itself being supported by the teller's implied lack of understanding about what the electoral college is.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] -3 points 2 weeks ago

It's always been this way. But now they just can talk to each other and blast their views online.

[–] [email protected] 43 points 2 weeks ago

sorry, I asked the parliamentarian if we could do democracy today and he told me to go fuck myself :/

[–] [email protected] 26 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I think a bigger component in making this happen is instituting ranked choice voting. Political parties are private institutions that have amassed entirely too much power over our country. Sure, we can vote but electoral college or popular voting and we still are stuck with a candidate selected by one of two private institutions. These private entities are able to control elected officials who stray too far from the party line. As long as large political parties control the candidates our vote holds less power.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

ranked choice isn't going to fix shit, proportional or go home

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

We could also just make it irrelevant by expanding Congress radically. Adding back all the seats we missed when we froze the numbers in the 1940s. Even better, we were slipping on the ratio of representatives to people even back then so we could go back to the original ratio or something in between. That would be a max of around 10,000 representatives, but you would be far more familiar with your representative and they could do elections without the support of the economic elite or being rich.

That doesn't require an amendment and it functionally obliterates this tyranny of the minority.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

This doesn't make the electoral college irrelevant, it just rebalances the votes per state so they're closer to proportional. California Republicans and Texas Democrats are still disenfranchised even if their states get a lot more votes.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah but that last hurdle takes a lot more to get over and in the meantime we've done something we should have anyways.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

We could also just make it irrelevant by expanding Congress radically. Adding back all the seats we missed when we froze the numbers in the 1940s.

or we could just do a CGPgrey and rework the math because we have computers now.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

Yup, that too

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Doesn't change the number of senators, sadly.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

yeah no, that should be the same, unless you wanted the senate to hold a proportional amount of seating to the house for some reason.

The senate and house are two independent bodies, they work together, and at odds simultaneously, the point is that the senate is different.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

That was always the point of the system though. And if we need to 86 the Senate then having them constantly blocking the house provides that momentum. It would be a huge fight.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

This is insane but I like it

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

Proper representation shouldn't be so unthinkable. And we could achieve the idea of better representation with one or two thousand. We don't need to go to ten thousand yet.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago

Insane, but modern technology makes it much more feasible today than ever before.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›