1121
Tim Walz calls for scrapping of electoral college to decide US presidential race
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024
1121 points (98.5% liked)
News
23367 readers
3112 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in 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
We are all slaves to the ruling class until this is done.
Which was the point of the EC in the first place:
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0065
Could you explain this sentence please? English isn't my first language and I can't make sense of it.
Southern states owned a lot of slaves, and thought the slave owners should get to have the slave's votes in addition to their own. They thought that if they couldn't do that, the South couldn't have a loud enough voice in the election.
It's kind of related to the 3/5th compromise.
Thanks !
White slave owners in the south didn't want abolitionists to vote away their supremacy over blacks, and thought the EC would be a good way to make sure the abolitionist voting bloc would be kept in check.
History is riddled with the results of people on the right side giving so much to the losers that the losers win in the long run.
They were monsters that treated humans like property.. fuuuuuuuuck them so hard.
And here we are, back again cuz someone didn't smack them hard enough
Now we're all still property, but must find a way to feed, clothe, home ourselves and get to our mostly underpaid jobs. It's fine if it's extralegal, until we're caught or turned in.
Madison was saying that blacks in the south were enslaved and couldn't vote. They made up a significant portion of the southern states population which put them at a disadvantage giving them poor representation.
I think we can mostly agree that the electoral college system is not working as intended. It was designed to give people outside the cities an extra boost to their representation, But it was certainly never designed to let fascism take hold.
Unfortunately there's no such thing as a fair and representative voting system. In all their cases you either end up underrepresenting the rural, over representing the rural, or forcing people to pick between candidates that they don't want.
Don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly down with what walls is calling for as it gives my intentions the best chance and at the same time will keep fascism from just popping in because they're good at propaganda. But I'd still like to see some other way.
I always hear that excuse about the rural areas not being represented without the electoral college, but my only reaction is GOOD. Rural areas are large in land ans small in people. Why should they get an equal voice as a Metropolitan area with the majority of people? A government is supposed to reflect the will of the people. The not ALL the people, that would be impossible, but but an average of the majority of the people.
Additionally, the government at the federal level has relatively minor impact at the local level. The federal level is broad strokes, the local government is fine strokes, and the state level is somewhere in between. Rural dwellers can run their local government however they like as long as it doesn't violate state or federal laws.
The real problem is that the size of the House of Representatives has been frozen for 100 years. The number of electoral college votes a state has is equal to the number of reps and senators they have. Since the House hasn't grown alongside our population, the relative representation for rural areas has steadily grown more and more.
Ending the cap on the House would balance out the electoral college issues and help reduce the constant congressional deadlocks we're seeing.
Not equal, but at the same time you don't want to collectively just shit on all your farmers, although, they don't seem to have any problem shitting on us so maybe?
I've always been and always will be a Ranked ~~Choice~~ Voting advocate
Can I persuade you to consider Approval or STAR?
RCV has some structural flaws that make it less than optimal. Flaws that exist in an Ordinal voting system but RCV puts a slightly odd twist on them, in some ways making them worse.
Approval or STAR on the other hand, are both Cardinal voting systems. They work on a different core principle and thus are immune to the flaws found in Ordinal systems.
Honestly, I'd be happy with any sort of ranked/cardinal voting system, and it looks like STAR is just a better RCV though. RCV just seems like the most likely to pick up steam in the US, tough I could be mistaken
RCV does have some money behind it, but it also has some deep-seated structural problems that come up with disturbing regularity.
Which leads to a situation where the results of an RCV election can be so bad that the district/state decides to axe voting reform entirely and go back to First Past the Post.
This has happened a few times now, and it sets efforts for real voting reform back. If you walk into Burlington, Vermont and say "I have voting reform that will fix the problems of First Past the Post" They will tell you to fuck off because they tried RCV, and it failed horribly because it's a bad system.
So an attempt to get STAR going will face that much more pushback. So it's better for everyone to resist RCV and push for STAR or Approval.
Approval has gotten some wins, and is also picking up steam. I'd be happy with it, even though STAR is slightly better.
And so we'll remain until we can also get rid of the two party system. This would be a good start, but we also need to change our voting system to anything but this awful first-past-the-post system.
Recall also need to be universal, and vacancies not appointed.
Maybe I'm to clinical but I think this means the petty bourgeois is a safe bet for the ruler class. That needs to change.
Removing the electoral college does nothing to change our two party system so I don't understand why you think it solves billionaire class rule.
It absolutely does. Without Republicans gerrymandering everything to stay in the fold, they're completely done. They'll get bodied every election. The last time the Republicans won the popular vote was 20 years ago, and the party has radically changed since then.
Hopefully undoing the electoral college is the first step to dismantling the two party system.
So thats on me, I said "does nothing to change our two party system" when I should have said "does nothing to remove our two party system". All this does is concentrate power into the democrats which if they had no worry of winning elections would very quickly openly turn into the Billionaire Boot Licking Society overnight. We need more political parties.
All this being said I'm not arguing against removing the electoral college, it needs to die. But Americas problems run so much deeper than the GOP
You think the midwest will have any say in what happens in the USA without it?
All the campaigns will spend time in NY, California, Texas, and nearby states. Campaign money goes where the votes go. Then government spending goes where the votes are.
Coroprations will own the midwest while farms exist, and care not about voting because their lobbying is paying the ad spend on the coasts.
This is a deep issue. The founders may have been white (mostly, remember hamilton isnt an opera) and flawed but they werent stupid.
As opposed to spending all their time in cities in swing states like they currently do? The EC is an abysmal failure at preventing candidates from ignoring huge swaths of the country. Fuck the EC. What is even dumber about the EC, is that basically every other office in the US counts all votes equally, and yet this isn't a problem at the state/local level.
One person, one vote. We are all born equal, all votes should be equal. Nobody is more deserving of a voice than any other.
That's already the case.
You mean to say, power will be more evenly distributed per person instead of per acre?
I’m ok with this.
so what? We're talking about a national vote for president. Your specific voice gets heard through local elections, not the president. Every person should have an equal vote. Period.
The flip side is that people who live in states with a big land area but relatively small population have a way oversized vote compared to people who live in high population states. Why should a small number of people in the Midwest be able to outvote the majority?
I want my devalued vote back. Any other rationalization is an assault on “one person one vote”.