The US Government is designed to represent rural populations not urban ones

[Elegiac]

You can tell that to past france lmao. Might wanna read on some electoralism history. Mabye die out is a bit hyperbolic, its more that nobody gives a shit about rural area, its called centralization of power. All our countries didnt come out with that idea out of the brunt of slavery like the united states did. Some has these electoral principal were updated in the last century. If 70% of the vote is in Paris, nobody present themselves anywhere else. Nothing gets fixed anywhere else outside of Paris.

The rural population in most western countries is between 20 to 10%. Essentially, these area do not exist electorally, ever.

Again, "we need to devalue certain people's votes because otherwise people won't pay attention to us" is an extremely conceited and shitty take.

In the case of France, you're also confusing a rise in a particular type of politics (read: a rightward shift of the overton window, which is known to produce shittier outcomes for people in smaller communities) with an inherent flaw in the electoral system. Weighting rural votes more would not produce better results for them any more than the US electing more Republicans magically fixes rural communities.

[uuuhname]

Weighting rural votes more would not produce better results for them any more than the US electing more Republicans magically fixes rural communities.

certainly true on the latter part, outside of booming economy's none of these areas have seen any sort of material improvement and republicans have been in charge of those areas (entire states most of the time) for decades.

[Miffinat0r]

And those cities were dominated by communists, a party that categorically refused to work with anyone.
Not being part of the problem doesn't automatically mean you're part of the solution.

Disregarding that now you're just entering the territory of anti rural rhetoric, it's not like the rural people in Weimar held more power than urban ones.

I guess the different communist factions never mattered, they were commies so they were never gonna work with anyone /shrug, not to mention there was the socialist parties, or the CD parties, or any of the right wing monarchist parties. But yea it was all commies!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_political_parties

[minteK917]

Again, "we need to devalue certain people's votes because otherwise people won't pay attention to us" is an extremely conceited and shitty take.

Its not a shitty take, its a fact electoralism has had to face and found different spin on the solution. For example voting in the European Union for a representative is based on your country. To not make countries like Germany or France even more powerful then they are and give smaller country some leverage of power. I feel you have a pretty shitty take yourself if you dont get why we do all this. This is the same for your states. Again the EU does this cleaner, because you get the seats of your states, based on the states, its just smaller states are given a boost in representation. Instead of being California 200 EC and Vermont 1 EC or Germany being 400 seat and Luxembourg being 1 seat. Like it probably would be, which means Vermont might as well never be part of a federal election and Luxembourg might as well leave the EU. And probably would never have power to ask things from these government bodies to begin with.

[Draco-Onis]

Its not a shitty take, its a fact electoralism has had to face and found different spin on the solution. For example voting in the European Union for a representative is based on your country. To not make countries like Germany or France even more powerful then they have and give smaller country some leverage of power. I feel you have a pretty shitty take yourself if you dont get why we do all this. This is the same for your states. Again the EU does this cleaner, because you get the seats of your states, based on the states, its just smaller states are given a boost in representation. Instead of being California 200 EC and vermont 1 EC. Like it probably would be, which means Vermont might as well never be part of a federal election. And probably would never have power to ask things from federal government to begin with.

The EU coalition is not the United States that's not even close to be a comparable, these are countries with complete autonomy free to leave a voluntary union at anytime.

[Elegiac]

Its not a shitty take, its a fact electoralism has had to face and found different spin on the solution. For example voting in the European Union for a representative is based on your country. To not make countries like Germany or France even more powerful then they have and give smaller country some leverage of power. I feel you have a pretty shitty take yourself if you dont get why we do all this. This is the same for your states. Again the EU does this cleaner, because you get the seats of your states, based on the states, its just smaller states are given a boost in representation.

This already exists with how the Senate (and to a lesser extent the House) is apportioned.

The Presidency is a nationwide office that is representative of all citizens, ergo all citizens should have an equal say in determining who occupies that office. Period.

Instead of being California 200 EC and vermont 1 EC. Like it probably would be, which means Vermont might as well never be part of a federal election. And probably would never have power to ask things from federal government to begin with.

Separation of powers between the federal and state governments also gives small states leverage in asking for things. Getting rid of the electoral college would in no way make things as dire as you seem to think.

[Kralljin]

I guess the different communist factions never mattered, they were commies so they were never gonna work with anyone /shrug, not to mention there was the socialist parties, or the CD parties, or any of the right wing monarchist parties. But yea it was all commies!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_political_parties

The largest communist party refused to work with anyone, prime reason being that Stalin (since funding Communist parties around the globe is a soviet trademark) didn't want that and the only party close to them backstabbed them 10 years earlier, when the SPD used the rightwing Paramilitaries to put down a communist revolution.

Matter of fact, they even put up their own presidental candidate in 1932 when it was obvious they wouldn't even have any hope at victory.
The other two candidates in that race were, by the way:
Hindenburg
Adolf Hitler

And if you're familiar with the US voting system, you should know that splitting votes is something that can backfire in quite the grandious fashion.

[minteK917]

The EU coalition is not the United States that's not even close to be a comparable, these are countries with complete autonomy free to leave a voluntary union at anytime.

That makes it even worse, not better lmao. So a state like vermont that cannot leave, need to have 0 federal funds or representation on any issues until california cares about whats going on in vermont, because california has 350 seats in Parliament and and probably 350 EC. vs their 1 seat and 1 EC. Thats how your theoritical system works in 1 vote to 1. Like i said study fucking history of electoralism for 10 fucking minutes. Its not about defending the EC, i already said its one of the worse version of how to do this thing lmao. But this sort of thing actually have reasons to exist, outside and inside the USA. Youd make a better case to not have such a system if Vermont could just fuck off and run without being controlled by the federal government.

[Miffinat0r]

Separation of powers between the federal and state governments also gives small states leverage in asking for things. Getting rid of the electoral college would in no way make things as dire as you seem to think.

Again this proves the point of the thread. I always wondered this back in college when I was doing poli sci why does the US basically strip all urban representation and remove them from all decisions at the federal level.

Essentially it boils down like this: Prior to this urban centers were the center of power, particularly under a monarchy. Enlightenment happens, the founders being wealthy land owners outside of major cities carved the republic to their liking. I mean they essentially said you can't represent people unless you owned land, and were a male. Then they proceed to make a constitution because the articles of confederation (which dummy Jefferson loved) failed miserably. The constitution gave the House to the urban populations, which was okay. Then in 1929 they capped the house, and over the years rural populations began gerrymandering the state legislatures to basically strip urban populations of all meaningful representation.

Now we have a system where if you live in a city you're a second class citizen at the behest of whatever the rural community wants.

[uuuhname]

So a state like vermont that cannot leave, need to have 0 federal funds or representation on any issues until california cares about whats going on in vermont

again... this is what the senate is for.

[Endus]

You're free to call those people that vote Republican nazis, anti Democrats, fascists, whatever, but that's not going to change their mind at the end of the day.

Why on God's green Earth would you ever think that my goal is to change their minds?

If you want me to educate them, I'll give you my billable rates as an educator and get to work.

If you're not gonna pay me, it's literally not my problem, and I'm perfectly satisfied letting them fester in their own ignorance and/or bile while society condemns them.

It's largely a waste of time and effort, anyway. You can't educate the hate out of hateful people; that's a core principle and they'll need an emotional reason to pull themselves out. If you want me to help build pathways to recovery, by all means, I can get behind that, for those who've already realized they're in the wrong and need a way out. But conversion? That's just asking to be abused. It doesn't work. At least, not without equally-horrendous tactics that I'm not willing to engage in.

Same reason I don't waste time trying to pull people out of problematic religious groups/cults, not until they express interest in leaving for their own reasons.

And i think that's a big issue, do you want to be right or do you want to prevent the worst case scenario from happening?

Here's the core issue;

You're making this a choice between "you can be right and the worst case scenario happens anyway", or "you can choose to be 'wrong' and do terrible things to people and maybe the worst case scenario doesn't happen". But maybe other equally-bad scenarios happen, at my demand, because of me being "wrong".

So in the first case, I'm ethically justified, and bad shit happens despite that.
And in the latter case, I'm ethically compromised, and bad shit happens because of me.

So it's actually a pretty goddamned easy choice. I'll choose to remain ethically justified over compromising those ethics. Because that's really the only legitimate option on the table.

Which is why in any professional association, making the other choice will generally get your license to practice summarily revoked and your certifications removed, often permanently without any opportunity to regain them. Because that choice is so wildly, deeply unacceptable.

Nazis didn't go from 2% in 1928 to 37% in 1932 because "the jews did it" suddenly made sense to people.

No. It was because "The Jews did it" had always made sense to the anti-semites throughout Germany. Anti-semitism in Europe has a long history.

That's the entire point, actually. That fascist scapegoating is always able to exploit the bigotries of the masses to gain power. And the only reasonable option to prevent that is constant condemnation and marginalization of said bigotries.

And those cities were dominated by communists, a party that categorically refused to work with anyone.

The KPD never formed a government, dude. They were a minority party, and politically relevant, but no, they weren't "dominating cities".

Not being part of the problem doesn't automatically mean you're part of the solution.

Failing to stop the Nazis rise to power doesn't mean the KPD's approach was "wrong".

Disregarding that now you're just entering the territory of anti rural rhetoric, it's not like the rural people in Weimar held more power than urban ones.

I've probably worked more with rural people on city and regional political representation than most people here, dude.

While that's "a few times", I'd venture most people's experience is "zero times".

My ex-wife's family were all rural farmers, too.

There's nothing about me that's "anti-rural". I just don't agree they deserve more representation per capita than anyone else.

[Draco-Onis]

That makes it even worse, not better lmao. So a state like vermont that cannot leave, need to have 0 federal funds or representation on any issues until california cares about whats going on in vermont, because california has 350 seats in Parliament and and probably 350 EC. vs their 1 seat and 1 EC. Thats how your theoritical system works in 1 vote to 1. Like i said study fucking history of electoralism for 10 fucking minutes. Its not about defending the EC, i already said its one of the worse version of how to do this thing lmao. But this sort of thing actually have reasons to exist, outside and inside the USA. Youd make a better case to not have such a system if Vermont could just fuck off and run without being controlled by the federal government.

You are comparing apples and oranges, you are also ignoring the senate and the presidency. In a 1 to 1 system you also wouldn't have gerrymandered districts, it's also a red herring. No one cares about the issues of any particular state their representative has to lobby people from other states to get momentum then get support in the senate to get through legislation. Your criticism would make sense if the house was the only lever a state had to get issues addressed.

[Elegiac]

That makes it even worse, not better lmao. So a state like vermont that cannot leave, need to have 0 federal funds or representation on any issues until california cares about whats going on in vermont, because california has 350 seats in Parliament and and probably 350 EC. vs their 1 seat and 1 EC. Thats how your theoritical system works in 1 vote to 1. Like i said study fucking history of electoralism for 10 fucking minutes. Its not about defending the EC, i already said its one of the worse version of how to do this thing lmao. But this sort of thing actually have reasons to exist, outside and inside the USA. Youd make a better case to not have such a system if Vermont could just fuck off and run without being controlled by the federal government.

> "Study fucking history of electoralism for 10 fucking minutes".
> Calls congress a parliament and doesn't know how apportionment works.

Yeah, I'm starting to think 10 minutes is the amount of time you've actually put into political science.

[Edge-]

So a state like vermont that cannot leave, need to have 0 federal funds or representation on any issues until california cares about whats going on in vermont, because california has 350 seats in Parliament and and probably 350 EC.

Legislature*

For the executive branch, yes, that's sorta how it works. It's a national seat, and realistically the EC shouldn't exist and it should be a straight up popular vote. That's how executive offices work.

But Vermont would still have representation in the Legislature, which is by design. Even if they lost power in the house by appropriately apportioning Representatives equally (i.e. removing the existing cap), they'd still maintain equal power in the Senate under the current system.

Their smaller say in the federal government is commensurate with their smaller population because you know, representative democracies and stuff.

But this sort of thing actually have reasons to exist, outside and inside the USA.

Like what? The historical reasons for its existence in the USA are pretty weak, especially in modern times. What's the practical argument in support of this secondary layer obscuring the actual democratic vote?

Youd make a better case to not have such a system if Vermont could just fuck off and run without being controlled by the federal government.

They're not. As with all states, they have broad autonomy to operate how they choose. Y'all act like states are purely at the whim of the federal government and that the Constitution doesn't set up many explicit limits on the reach of the federal government and explicit rights that states have.

[minteK917]

Separation of powers between the federal and state governments also gives small states leverage in asking for things. Getting rid of the electoral college would in no way make things as dire as you seem to think.

The closer the level of government is to you, the more representative it should be, not the other way around. I already explaining why in the example of Canada, you probably dont want the executive to be representative 1 to 1. What i said is still in essence getting rid of your electoral college, because instead each states gets a certain count of EC, not 1 to 1 vote. And there is no winner takes all. This is in line with a country like Canada for example. Urban dense states still have a pretty large adventages, since the EC even now is based on population, just not 1 to 1. Kinda like what the EU, Canada, other federation do. I feel USA just needs to kinda copy those to be fine.

[Miffinat0r]

The closer the level of government is to you, the more representative it should be, not the other way around. I already explaining why in the example of Canada, you probably dont want the executive to be representative 1 to 1. What i said is still in essence getting rid of your electoral college, because instead each states gets a certain count of EC, not 1 to 1 vote. And there is no winner takes all. This is in line with a country like Canada for example. Urban dense states still have a pretty large adventages, since the EC even now is based on population, just not 1 to 1. Kinda like what the EU, Canada, other federation do. I feel USA just needs to kinda copy those to be fine.

Not really considering they don't have more representation in the EC because the House is capped.

[PC2]

GDP, business locations and wealth have everything to do with local policies, ideologies and population make up. Businesses go where the talent and profit are it's obviously not the rural areas or red states.

Yeah so that's one part of the explanation. You're not trying to reduce economics and success down to an association with the blue or red team, which is why this post isn't problematic.

[minteK917]

> "Study fucking history of electoralism for 10 fucking minutes".
> Calls congress a parliament and doesn't know how apportionment works.

Yeah, I'm starting to think 10 minutes is the amount of time you've actually put into political science.

No i know how the appointment works. Im literally saying if you have everything 1 to 1 vote. This is what you get lmao. I know Cali doesent have 350 seats and doesent get 350 EC. Thats by fucking design, in no federal branch does your population translate directly into your power, thats actually not a bad thing. So tell me why then is your reasoning why only the legislative branch needs to be unbalanced. And the Executive and by proxy the legislative needs to be 1 to 1. If one is bad, they are all bad. Thats what im saying. They arent bad, other federation do this, just not as shitty as the united states.

[Elegiac]

The closer the level of government is to you, the more representative it should be, not the other way around.

Why.

I already explaining why in the example of Canada, you probably dont want the executive to be representative 1 to 1.

You've repeatedly insisted that certain people's votes should matter less because otherwise you won't get as much attention without explaining why that should be the case.

What i said is still in essence getting rid of your electoral college, because instead each states gets a certain count of EC, not 1 to 1 vote. And there is no winner takes all. This is in line with a country like Canada for example. Urban dense states still have a pretty large adventages

Which are... what?

Because you're lying about the EC being based on population.

[minteK917]

Not really considering they don't have more representation in the EC because the House is capped.

I didnt think i had to explain im talking about the difference in why you dont get 1 to 1 vote using every single branch of the federal government. I ask the question then. Why is is good for the legislative branch to be unbalanced to boost the representation of smaller states, but not the executive or judicial. Like i said its funny too, because all the other federation already know this answer. It seems to puzzle the USA only. Mabye EC is shit, but mabye there still a reason other federation dont do the 1 to 1 for executive and by proxy judicial powers either. Just a guess or americans are the center of the universe again.