In an American election? Nah, most of those people won’t vote, cause that’s Vancouver.
We should correct the failure of the war of 1812 so that Vancouver can vote in American elections.
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0065
I paste this everywhere because the narrative of lies has been ubiquitous:
There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.
This was James Madison, ie the guy who came up with it. It exists to launder slave votes through their owners, nothing more. It’s not about land, it’s just about the south using the votes of people they don’t let vote.
Yes indeed.
All votes should count as one. Just the idea that the votes of some people values more than others is undemocratic by principle. It’s not the winner of the state that should decide as one state may have more people than others. What is democratic and must be placed is the TOTAL of votes is what must count.
We can count can’t you?so why do any other way? The only reason one may want otherwise is because he or she thinks he or she may have something to gain with this crooked system
I never really understood the Rick and Morty joke until your comment: https://youtu.be/-ck-NLG_vIA.
It worked out better till England ended the slave trade, the South could just buy more votes whenever there was a concern.
After that they started going crazy and doing weird shit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Walker_(filibuster) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostend_Manifesto
Anytime you see a map of the US with “preference by county”, go ahead and pull up a map of the US at night from space next to it.
You’ll see that once choice is generally where electricity is, and the other choice is where it’s dark.
Just remember for much of the Post WWII era, Congress AND the Senate, and fairly often the presidency was held by the Democrats. It is only really in the wake of the post end of gold standard that the Republican party saw growth in it’s numbers, basically in lock step with inflation. And I don’t mean inflation approved by government made up CPI numbers that are doctored through changing methodology to promote as close to the supposed golden value of 2%, when if we look at most of history the real golden number for inflation was somewhere around 0%. The only benefactors of ending the gold standard were the wealthy. The major benefactors of free trade agreements were the wealthy. The only benefactors of shipping manufacturing to China was Western Governments hell bent on isolating the Soviet Union, when - that was hardly necessary, and practically speaking ineffective.
When people talk about gerrymandering, and so many other issues: What I start to see is a planned distraction, one masking a much older, deeper, and more fundamental truth that eats and rots the foundation.
Pure Fiat has been disastrous for productivity in the West. And that too has been disastrous for birth rates that again, fall in lock step starting with the oil crisis - and continuing on with disastrous fiscal policy, followed by export of good well paying blue collar jobs to foreign nations - removing the value creation from the local economy, and handing it to nations who politically are opposed to the wests way of life.
The only people who were wanting to change that in some way - got assassinated.
This doesnt check out because the earth is flat and space isnt real
This guy’s already pregaming for the long dark into fascism
Mostmaps people use to make some point, especially some political point, turn out to just be population density maps.
Which is why the overlay in this instance is so troubling.
So what’s an actual argument supporting that gerrymandering is more democratic? When I was younger, I natively assumed it was a system decided by some smart people to make it more fair for reasons I don’t understand. Now that I’m older, I realize that the smart people know what they’re doing but are morally evil and intentionally do this to support corruption.
Land owners were the original voters.
The rest of us plebes didn’t know what to do with such capital, so we had to yield to their “superior” vote.
This is why the right to vote has been such a constant fight across the centuries.
LandPeople owners were the original votersFTFY
“Property owners” covers both and is more concise
People are never property
Also that
As a non American from what I understand about the electoral collage is the land has more say.
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.
slightly more weight per vote
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.
Yeah, this meme is backwards if it’s supposed to be explaining the electoral college.
It’s also a picture of Vancouver, Canada, so it’s wrong on all levels.
Yeah… Anyone interested in this should look up gerrymandering bounderies. :/ we fu’ked.
Electoral College: your vote’s power = (People / Arbitrarily Defined Land Area) because fuck you, that’s why.
Treeson!
Lousy firries
Yup the majority rules.
