this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2023
816 points (98.5% liked)

politics

18931 readers
3244 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SCB@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

State electors are literally representatives

[–] Tavarin@lemmy.ca 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The electors only exist because it made it possible to hold a vote across a large nation in a time when horses were the fastest mode of communication. And each elector was supposed to carry the results of the same number of voters.

But the country has grown, with some states growing in population much faster than others. Yet the number of electors remains unchanged. Not to mention electors are now completely unnecessary as we have fast and reliable communication methods.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

You can disagree with the electoral college and still recognize that electors are literally representatives.

This is basic civics.

[–] Tavarin@lemmy.ca 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

But they aren't really, they're just vote messengers, they aren't on capital hill making laws and advocating for their constituents.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

All representatives are "vote messengers." That's why we call them representatives.

[–] Tavarin@lemmy.ca 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I would disagree that senators and congressmen are just vote messengers. They run on active platforms, respond to changes in their constituencies (hopefully), deal with new issues as they arise.

Electors literally just ferry the states vote to Washington, that's it and job done. Representatives continually represent the will of their constituents through multiple years, or at least that's what they are supposed to do.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

respond to changes in their constituencies

Yes. This is being a representative.

[–] Tavarin@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yes, and how exactly do electors do that on an ongoing basis?

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

They do it when they're in the role.

Why are you so passionate about something so simple? This entire conversation is confusing to me, in terms of intent.

[–] Tavarin@lemmy.ca 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

And what about the other 1200+ days they aren't in the role for each 1 they are in it?

Why are you so passionate in misusing the term representative?

Representatives are more than just vote carriers.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Indeed they often are. They are also advocates, in general.

However

And what about the other 1200+ days they aren’t in the role for each 1 they are in it?

Electors are chosen each cycle and are different people.

[–] Tavarin@lemmy.ca 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

So they're just vote carriers. Unlike the actual representatives on this hill who spend most of the year actually governing for you.

Cool. Glad you cleared up that electors are useless and not really representatives.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

They're still appointed representatives of the state, though. States vote in the election, per the Constitution.

I'd love to ditch the EC, but it does exist, and the electors are representatives. This isn't complicated at all, and I'm not sure why this is personal to you.

[–] Tavarin@lemmy.ca 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

No one voted for them, they are not representatives. They are vote carriers.

Sullying the actual work representatives do by calling glorified vote carriers the same thing is an insult to the word representative.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

They represent the state in the actual election of the President. "Faithless electors" are a thing, at least as a theoretical concept.

It's not insulting to use words for what they mean. I am so very confused by your underlying hostility here.

[–] Tavarin@lemmy.ca 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I'm so very confused why you continue to argue your bullshit side.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You have a great day man. This is going nowhere.

[–] Tavarin@lemmy.ca 0 points 9 months ago

No shit, you could have stopped replying your incorrect side ages ago.