• rainman@lemmy.myserv.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    I don’t know much about the ins and outs of politics, but wouldn’t modifying the electoral college to be bound by popular vote help?

    Or if it were abolished, couldn’t the popular vote be set to act as one vote per section, with separation in a way that is fair.

    Just spit balling here, but it doesn’t seem like going pop vote means we would have to drown out less populated areas with densely populated areas.

    Am I wrong? Am I on the right track?

    • Starbuncle@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 hours ago

      “Drowning out” less populated areas with more populated areas is a non-issue that conservatives pretend is a bad thing because it’s in their interest to do so. The less popular ideas being drowned out by the more popular ones is fundamentally how democracy is supposed to work. What they really want is to maintain the status quo where some people’s votes are worth several times more than others just because they live in a less densely populated region. Land shouldn’t vote. Borders shouldn’t vote. Corporations shouldn’t vote. PEOPLE ARE THE VOTERS.

      • howrar@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 minutes ago

        I’m conflicted on this. On one hand, there are clear problems with the electoral college situation right now, but on the other hand, getting rid of it means that the tyranny of the majority will become a bigger problem. It’s unclear to me which is worse or how we can fix the latter.