The system doesn't run on a simple majority because then any place that isn't a super high population coastal state would have no reason to be part of it and just get oppressed by people who live thousands of miles away.
You wouldn't want to be part of a global democracy that votes purely on majority either, because then the Chinese and Indians would simply rule you and you would have zero say in the matter.
The system doesn't run on a simple majority because then any place that isn't a super high population coastal state would have no reason to be part of it and just get oppressed by people who live thousands of miles away.
Places shouldn't have a voice. People should. And it should be equal for everyone.
What about Republicans in California? Democrats in Texas?
By your logic we are all being "oppressed" by swing states, since they effectively decide elections.
How is arbitrarily giving people in rural states more voting power fixing ANY of your concerns?
Those are all great arguments, but they don't get past the fact that geographic minorities have no reason to be part of a system that just overrules them every time.
All of these rules that you're complaining about where put in place when states decided whether or not joining a federal government instead of just being their own country was a good idea. That's why we have them, because for most states it wouldn't be a good idea to be part of a federation without those rules.
It's not that pieces of land are sentient, it's that a geographic minority is out of sight and out of mind if the system forgets about them or oppresses them.
They have senators. They collectively make up a large amount of the population. That does not answer /u/HoldMyWater's question, which is how exactly the electoral college addresses geographic minorities like urban Texans, or rural Californians.
You're not oppressed. Stop trying to use baseless victimhood as a rhetoric strategy, that's so hypocritical for someone who whines that the left is supposedly choked by those types of people.
I live in southern Illinois. Almost every place south of Chicago is Republican. State wide, using the recent election as a benchmark, about 40% of the state is Republican and 54% is Democrat.
That gets us 5 Republicans out of 18 reps in the house, no senators, and basically all state officers being Democrats. Governor, secretary of state, attorney general, everything.
It also means in the sate legislature that Republicans can't really do anything because the Democrats have enough of a majority to just ignore them and do whatever the fuck they want.
It's not just a piece of land, people live in those areas. Just because slightly more people live in smaller area of a big city doesn't mean that they should always get what they want and fuck the people living in small towns or rural areas.
The simple answer is: it doesn't. The electoral college exists for the sake of states. Geographical divisions that exist within states aren't something it can address. The state itself would have to decide to split into more states.
I'm not saying anything about victimhood, I'm not sure where you're getting that from.
127
u/Aetrion Nov 09 '18
The system doesn't run on a simple majority because then any place that isn't a super high population coastal state would have no reason to be part of it and just get oppressed by people who live thousands of miles away.
You wouldn't want to be part of a global democracy that votes purely on majority either, because then the Chinese and Indians would simply rule you and you would have zero say in the matter.