65% of U.S. adults say the way the president is elected should be changed so that the winner of the popular vote nationwide wins the presidency.

  • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    1 year ago

    The whole thing is absurd and overly represents rural areas and Republicans. We already have a huge problem with the “2 senators per state” thing and the House representing Republicans far too much in relation to their numbers.

      • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well, then, maybe we should start considering splitting up some states and joining others together then. A place like California is more future-minded and it’s where a great deal of the people are, as well as much of our economy. Also, it’s where a lot of our food is grown. And it gets 2 Senators.

        The 2 Dakotas have more than that, and what do they really represent for the future of America and the world? More fracking?

        Maybe states with really large masses and hardly anyone in them are combined. Idaho, Montana and Wyoming - one state. North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska, another.

              • prole@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s crazy how many people in this thread don’t seem to know the absolute basics of how their own government is structured and why.

                The only reason the Senate is such a problem right now, is because the House of Representatives needs to be properly reapportioned so it’s actually representative.

                • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  On this, we definitely agree. The House is being held down to an arbitrary number and it is patently absurd.

          • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’d be an easier sell if the rural areas less consistently used their voice to shit up the world.

          • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            It feels like a compromise from a period of time that is no longer relevant to these times when we are trying to push this country into the future. I don’t want rural regions to have more of a voice, FFS. Look at what it is doing to this country. Having fewer people have an equal say with the majority of the people is also not great, the majority should win out. Why the fuck should tracts of land be voting?

              • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                completely silence the voice of a group of people for all time

                I don’t think anything proposed here by anyone would do that? What is being proposed is to stop prioritizing the votes of people occupying vast tracts of land over the majority. To have a vote cast by someone in the hinterlands equal someone’s vote in more populous parts of the country is putting them on par with everyone else. I’m not so sure what is so magical about someone living in a remote area that their interests should not align with everyone else’s.

            • prole@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              How is it no longer relevant? Do you know where your food comes from?

              You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the legislative branch of the US government is structured, and why.

              Your concerns are valid, but you’re not aiming them at the correct House.

              • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’m not understanding the food part here.

                I understand the history of compromising with states that had less (free) people because of slave states; I’m saying it’s no longer relevant in modern society. It turns out rural areas are usually better represented by Democratic policies in any case. Ironically.

    • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      The Republicans are the main reason we still have it … they know they’d never win if they had to play fair.

    • JackbyDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      But but but why should cities get to determine everything? Don’t you know that not only does land vote, everyone in a patch of land votes the same? So, why bother giving everyone in a city a vote, you know?

      Also, be sure to let the vice president cancel the whole thing if they don’t like the results.

      (Please tell me my sarcasm is obvious.)

    • orclev@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      We should just abolish the Senate. With the current formulation of the US government there’s no reason why a State should have extra power like that. Let the people make the rules. Expand the House, abolish the Senate, and remove the electoral college. And since we’re wishing for things that will never happen anyway, go ahead and use some kind of proportional vote (ranked choice, star, whatever, just literally anything but FPTP).