• Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    8 months ago

    Yeah, but like that’s going to stop him taking waaay too close to 50% of the vote to be comfortable.

    • Fades@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      8 months ago

      It’s not about 50% it’s about swing states and the illegitimate electoral college

        • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          Glad that has an article I can share to my friends who are normally very intelligent, but they legit believe Biden stole the erection.

          • Rakonat@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            8 months ago

            Uh Trump was the one in office. Pretty damn hard rig an election when you’re not in power or position to influence.

        • Fades@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          8 months ago

          Sure

          The electoral college allows states with far less people to have the same amount of power as those with far denser populations

          It made sense in the past but no longer, and instead at times goes against the majority will of the people a la Trump and many previous examples

          • WhatIsThePointAnyway@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            8 months ago

            It never made sense. It was literally created to make sure voters could be overruled in the event the ruling class (party insiders) disagreed with their choice. It was justified to stop “mob rule” also known as the will of we the people.

            • WildPalmTree@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              8 months ago

              It did make sense, but I understand why it might not seem like it to “modern Americans”. In fact, it’s quite an interesting mental challenge of putting yourself in someone else’s shoes.

              We have a similar issue today in the EU. Do we base it one “one country, one vote” or on “one person, one vote”? Both sides of the argument is valid. Why would small countries join if they give up complete independence to the giants? I imagine the situation was very similar when the US was formed.

              I think the flaw in the US system is they failed to forsee that states (or rather, people) would see themselves as one country and not a collection of countries. There should have been a time limit on the discrepancy of voting power.

              Sure, for a hundred years, a state is where your loyalty, your feeling of self, your center is at. But as time moves on, you are less an Ohioian and more of s USian. Similarly, I would hope, you are less of a German and more of an EUian.

              Neither blocks seem to have taken this into consideration but it makes it none the less true. Future generations paying the price for previous. Yada yada…

          • recapitated@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            8 months ago

            I agree with you that it’s outdated and a terrible fit.

            Until we effectively replace it in law, unfortunately, it’s literally not illegitimate.

          • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            I think a big reason why turning Texas Blue is such a priority, once that happens the GOP will be glad to get rid of the electoral college.

        • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          In 1929, Congress passed the Reapportionment Act, loving the House of Representatives at 435. Due to population growth in largely coastal states, and the requirement of at least one Representative per state, the House, which was intended to provide representation proportional to population, instead give a significant amount of power to states with lower population densities, resulting in a tendency towards minority rule in the House. Since the number of Electoral College votes are proportional to a state’s delegation to Congress, this also gives low-population states an outsized influence over the Presidential election, contrary to the intent of the US Constitution.

          • Fades@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            8 months ago

            The electoral college allows states with far less people to have the same amount of power as those with far denser populations

            It’s not rocket science, and yes I trust spellcheck too much

    • ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      another “true, but”, comment: remember, Hillary got more votes than him. By the most in quantity and margin size in history, and still lost.