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.

  • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Again, you’re intentionally defeating the purpose of the Senate. The entire point is to give rural, less populous areas more of a voice.

      • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s why we are supposed to have House members representative of pure population, and not land. Senate gives more power to rural areas, House gives more power to urban areas. It’s supposed to even out. Checks and balances.

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

    • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      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?

      • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        We should never completely silence the voice of a group of people for all time, even if right now they’re pushing some heinous shit.

        Part of the reason for the phenomenon of Trump was the failure of politicians to care about the legitimate problems that rural voters have.

        In any case, if the House and Electoral College functioned like they should, the majority would win a lot more often. Don’t focus on the Senate, focus on the two institutions that weren’t designed to give rural people an outsized choice but have been manipulated to do so.

        • 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
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        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.

    • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

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

      • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        True, but it’s not always guaranteed to be that way. We should never give one group absolute power.

        • squirmy_wormy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          To be honest bud, your point of view is very frustrating in the times we live, but it is an extremely sound argument and I begrudgingly can get behind it.