this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2024
594 points (97.1% liked)
Political Memes
5402 readers
3299 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Kind of?
The electoral college is no longer functioning as designed, and so voters in certain less populated areas have slightly more weight per vote than those in heavily populated areas. Only because the number of districts was artificially capped. So some districts have more people than several states do.
States also get two bonus votes for some reason.
The argument was that if someone posed a genuine threat to democracy and had a chance at winning the popular vote, the delegates could step in and vote for someone else.
A consequence of that, is that exactly the opposite can happen too.
Wyoming citizens count three times as much as California citizens
They should go to gym!
It is ABSOLUTELY functioning as designed. But you have to understand - Tyranny of the Majority; the threat of Religious Despots: Those two things were VERY MUCH in the minds of the founding fathers.
The argument is sometimes said as "they can step in" but in reality, that is up to the rules regulating how votes are cast based on state rules.
But you must first understand: The Founding fathers understood that Tyranny of the Majority could be a serious threat (see religious Tyranny and conflict that has lead to all kinds of problems and persecutions throughout history). It's complicated.
Now: If you want to argue that election reform is needed in the modern day: I ABSOLUTELY 100% AGREE. I would LOVE to see an abolishoning of first past the post, and party centric electoral voting - in favour of Ranked Choice Ballots where it all pans out through one single vote. But who benefits? Well: It's not the DNC, and it's not the GOP: SO good luck getting the constitutional amendment needed to make that a reality.
Thing is: We COULD start - at municipal elections, elections for small positions. That is the BEST place to start but odds are, even there, you are going to have the DNC, and GOP fighting it at every step of the way, because that is a DISASTER for party control over elected officials: After all, in a world of Mass to Mass communication, you don't need a big party to organize campaign drives - you can set up your social media posts, you can do a tonne of efforts and coordination remotely which means you can be out and talking to people basically anywhere in the country, and still be able to work to coordinate efforts directly.