I wouldn’t necessarily say this. I am more moderate than anything. I like guns, financial conservativism (which I think the right once supported) and personal liberties (right wing), but like the ideas of a social security net (and I think we could save money with single payer health care) and a few other social ideas (left wing).
I try to stay open to ideas and try to consider their merits and faults. I think that is why I like some things from both sides.
I think this debate was good. No name calling, or intentionally bad arguments (strawman, steel man, etc.). It isn’t fun debating H as we normally agree. It is more fun debating those who disagree.
I just don’t care for the discussion. I’ve found out a long time ago, people rarely, if ever, get swayed from their foundational beliefs. I know I certainly don’t.
That’s the problem as far as I see it. With a popular vote politicians would never have to leave the major population centers, which are all liberal. As it stands now, politicians have to campaign in rural areas to get those votes. I don’t see Kamala going to some Idaho potatoe Queen pageant if all she had to do was go to LA, NY, Shit-cago, Baltimore, etc. Therefore those stupid redneck hillbilly fucks who keep voting for Trump would not be represented. Just my 2c.
No they don’t. Most politicians aren’t going to tiny rural areas with limited population in a presidential race. They are going to swing states where it’s possible they may hit some smaller areas but largely still bigger ones.
Zero reason for a Republican to go to California or rural Alabama. In a popular vote a Republican and Democrat would both be likely to go to those states. They would hit bigger areas but they already do that anyways.
This makes no sense at all. If I live alone on 5 acres of land, but 200 people live in a sky rise apartment that occupies 0.5 acres of land at the end of my street, should my vote count 2000 times more than each of theirs? (which would be the case if we let a picture like this guide us)
I love the fairness argument, when it comes to politics. It’s unfair that individual votes in more sparsely populated states have a minute amount more power than those in densely populated states, but it’s not unfair that the vote of someone losing $50,000/year to the federal government is equal to that of the person who will not earn $50,000 in her lifetime.
They are currently overrepresented (this is a mathematical fact). They would get bumped down to being fairly represented. That isn’t the same as not being represented.
I stated from the beginning that we are talking about fair, not currently legal, and to say that sparsely populated states have a minute amount more voting power in the senate is absurd. 65X more voting power is minute?
I didn’t make that argument. You can if you want too.
Now mind you, I’m just spit balling here, I know not that of which I speak, but if the biggest population centers are majority liberal, and there are more liberals in the country than conservatives, then with a popular vote a liberal candidate would always win. Therefore the conservative voter would never be represented. And the opposite would obviously be true, with a conservative majority.
I knows you think that’s fair, because hey, if the majority of the people are liberal then that’s the way the country should be governed. But that’s what actually makes it UNFAIR, because the rest of the country will always be cast aside so to speak.
That’s the genius in the way the founding fathers set up this constitutional republic. It allows for fair and equal representation of ALL Americans.
And this system has shown to be equal and fair judging by the fact that the torch has been passed between Democrat and Republican, back and forth since the beginning. Neither party has held an unfair advantage.
If the tables were turned, I think you’d be arguing the opposite. If Trump gets the popular vote next week but Biden gets the electoral vote, I’m sure you’ll be happy with that result, no?
That is what the constitution is for. To make sure minority can’t have their rights take from them.
A minority having more power than a majority is fair and equal? That is what happened in 2016 and 2000.
That is not proof that it is fair and equal. Not sure how you came up with that proof.
This isn’t what we are talking about. Try to keep up. We are talking about how much power individual people have with their senate votes.
I am not convinced it is unfair or fair. I am convinced individuals in sparsely populated states having much more voting power in the senate is unfair.
TIPTON, Ia. — In front of about two dozen people seated on hay bales next to a corn field, U.S. Sen Kamala Harris announced her rural development plan, which she said would create job growth.
This isn’t even remotely true. Reagan twice, Bush 1, GWB 1. That’s 5 Republican elections since 1980 that would have won no matter what. And really Trump is the only one where the margin wasn’t absolutely razor thin. Gore was the first since 1888 to win popular lose conservative.
Why? Do they not have a chance to appeal to voters to support them?
I wouldn’t be. Because who wins doesn’t make the system right. If Trump got the popular vote and Biden won I will be happy because Trump won’t be President. But the argument will be the same. The system simply doesn’t make sense and Trump voters were unfairly represented.
That’s fair. The vast majority of campaign events at the presidential level in battleground states are in large population areas. You know where they never are? In entire states where the margin doesn’t even appear to be close.
With the popular vote I have no doubt you would see Presidents travel to more states and no they would not just be “liberal” areas.
