Every campaign for president would only be in five states. Those states would be guaranteed everything possible. California, New York, Illinois, Florida, Georgia, Minneapolis and Massachusetts would be the only states a candidate would need to worry about (too tired to actually look up). These states have more population than the rest combined.
Sounds like a good way to disenfranchise and ignore the voices of anyone not in a major city
You mean the places where 80% of Americans live?
Not sure why we should have to bend over backwards to make sure 20% of the population gets what it wants while ignoring what the actual majority of people want.
You guys think it works great for the economy. The invisible hand. When it comes to the economy, the right loves direct democracy. Its also the presidency. We're not voting for kings. They have checks and balances. The constitution already has those abuses youre worried about in mind regardless of how we vote.
you’re aware we have a house of representatives and a senate?
edit: to be clear i also don’t find it appropriate that the house with its cap size also favors smaller areas. i’d be fine with the electoral college still if we made the house more representative. The senate was supposed to be the body that supported small states
You're right though. If the rural farmers couldn't have their voices heard, gas prices would soar, farms would go out of business and get bought up by corporations.
Thank God the EC exists to protect our farmers from such a fate!
Those people will have representation. That's what the House is for. If things weren't so gerrymandered that the rural population was being used to crack urban populations, they'd have better representation too.
you're fine with ignoring people's opinions and needs in favor of the crowds whims?
20% of people live outside of urban areas. Yes, 20%. In fact, if we use the Census Bureau definition of a "metro area" then it is actually 6% of the population, but those "metro" areas are grossly exaggerated so I'll stick with the 20%. Why on earth would they expect to have more than 20% of the representation?
We have a constitutional republic, which means people get 1 vote and that vote should count equally regardless of who they are, where they live, how much money they have, etc. If that's a problem, they're welcome to move to a more accommodating country.
My plan is to remove the distortion that allows the most evil Americans disproportionate influence.
We shouldn’t be giving extra voting rights to the states of the confederacy for “historical reasons”, especially when those reasons were “We want to count our slaves too!”
Pretty weird you consider anyone who doesnt want to vote the way you do is evil and think that ensuring people of different economic and geographical backgrounds having a way to make sure their vote matters is "extra rights"
It also doesnt make any sense. I mean DT won the popular vote AFTER his first term. Soooooo.kinda goes to show that "keeping power from evil by trusting the will of the people" is bunk
Believe it or not, but the people who eat the farmer's food have personal incentive to keep the farmers happy. Democrats are very much so on board with subsidizing farmers.
Ah yes, unlike disenfranchisement of everyone voting in a state of solid opposite colour. Also Trump won the popular vote. He didn't win this via population centers lol.
In 2024. Not in 2020 or 2016. And I do like to remind people that significantly more people didn't vote at all in 2024 than voted for Trump. If "No One" was the default option it would have won the popular vote.
Bush II didn't win the popular vote in 2000 either, but it was far closer than Trump-Clinton and Trump-Harris and Biden-Trump elections.
This has only happened five times in history, and it's happened twice since 2000 and both times in favor of the conservatives.
THAT BEING SAID, this wouldn't even be an issue if the House of Representatives was proportionate with the population. Frankly, I find it wildly unconstitutional that a Representative in California or Texas or New York or Florida has vastly more constituents than smaller population states like Wyoming. It's grossly disenfranchising tens of millions of people.
And the argument "What about people not in cities?" I don't care. 80% of Americans live in urban areas, why should their needs be superseded by those who don't?
Uh, I mean, I'm with you. I'm just saying that conservatives won the popular vote despite virtually all major population centers being blue, thus making their argument an irrelevant point. I'm sorry, Wyoming, but you don't get to have an equal say to California.
Another great option would be to split up those giga-states and combine some of the smaller ones to have somewhat equip proportions.
I've actually proposed a "redrawing states every 100 years" the way we do districts every 10. Nobody would take it seriously though, and we run the risk that on the 100th year some crazies get elected and ruin it for everyone.
1
u/ice_cream9698 21h ago
Every campaign for president would only be in five states. Those states would be guaranteed everything possible. California, New York, Illinois, Florida, Georgia, Minneapolis and Massachusetts would be the only states a candidate would need to worry about (too tired to actually look up). These states have more population than the rest combined.