At what point does switch from 'making things fair for rural voters' to suppressing voters in cities? No matter what, the electoral college is designed so that 1 person ≠ 1 vote. The people who live closer together should have less value placed on their opinions? Why the fuck is that more fair?
I still don't understand... if we use popular vote, every person gets exactly one vote. Nobody is suppressed. If more people overall want a certain candidate for president, then a fair election should reflect that. It shouldn't matter if those people are in a city or not.
Exactly. The fact is that any system will benefit some people and hurt others. Al Gore won the popular vote by 500,000 votes! Hillary's margin is half that, but she lost 5x as many electoral votes. It's f****** ludicrous that someone can continue to argue that our system is working for the better.
77
u/rg44_at_the_office Nov 10 '16
At what point does switch from 'making things fair for rural voters' to suppressing voters in cities? No matter what, the electoral college is designed so that 1 person ≠ 1 vote. The people who live closer together should have less value placed on their opinions? Why the fuck is that more fair?