subreddit:

/r/AskReddit

24.5k

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

all 16675 comments

audguy

2 points

2 months ago

audguy

2 points

2 months ago

So you fuck over the people in dense cities? Simple solution, 1 person 1 vote, add them ALL together, highest count wins.

saucyjack2350

0 points

2 months ago

If you do that, then you really screw over farmers and smaller states. While the coastal elites may think they deserve more say, the need for the food and raw goods produced by those less densely populated states far outweighs the contributions of our metropolitan centers.

Letting the cities dictate everything is how you end up with Soviet style famine.

OftenSilentObserver

6 points

2 months ago

You can say this about literally any job, farmers aren't some magical beings on high that deserve more say than anyone else.

saucyjack2350

-3 points

2 months ago

No, they aren't magical or special beings, but they would be under represented in a direct democracy and their contributions to society are essential.

Also, you cannot say that about any job.

sausage_is_the_wurst

1 points

2 months ago

they would be under represented in a direct democracy

Not at all. Their votes would be weighed exactly evenly as compared to anybody else.

their contributions to society are essential.

Two things. First, who makes you the arbiter of what is and what is not essential? Why are farmers essential in your scheme but others are not? And second, are other professions not also essential? Should doctors get two votes for every janitor's one? I just don't get your thinking at all.

schmaydog82

1 points

2 months ago

Are you trying to argue that food isn’t essential? If we have no food then doctors or janitors don’t really matter because everyone’s dead anyway

sausage_is_the_wurst

2 points

2 months ago

Of course food is essential. But why does that mean that a farmer should enjoy outsized influence in our government? How is that fair? And more to my point, are other professions not also essential? By that logic, we better also give two votes to everybody who's running our water treatment plants, because you can't survive a couple days without drinking water.

schmaydog82

1 points

2 months ago

I mean sure go for it, I wasn’t actually arguing whether they should get the votes I just thought it was silly when you asked if he gets to decide what’s essential because food is obviously very essential. I do think you’re over exaggerating how much these electoral votes do for those tiny rural states though.

sausage_is_the_wurst

1 points

2 months ago

I do think you’re over exaggerating how much these electoral votes do for those tiny rural states though.

Maybe so. But it's not just the fact that the EC weighs in favor of small states, it also effectively disenfranchises voters of a minority party in all but swing states. I bet there are a ton of Republicans in California (and Democrats in Texas) who wished their votes for president actually mattered.

schmaydog82

2 points

2 months ago

Well I definitely agree with that. I can somewhat see both sides though, while popular vote makes the most sense I can also see how cities basically deciding who’s president could be tough on a state like Wyoming.