Comments by "Rob McCune" (@robm6645) on "Caller: Keep the Electoral Vote So Rural Voters Aren't Ignored" video.

  1. Why ignore the votes of millions for the sake of thousands? Rural voters already have representation in congress and the senate. Why should their votes count more than the votes of people in cities?
    44
  2. Brian Lopez You do realize it takes more more people than live in Los Angeles and New York to elect a president right? Together they make up less than 1% of the country's population. If they were enough people to elect a president by themselves there wouldn't be much of a middle America to care about it.
    2
  3. Bluedragon094 We already live in a country like that, we just elected a New Yorker for president. You people seem to think that NY and LA are like the size of India, yet simultaneously think that that there are millions upon millions of oppressed people in fly over country who are would somehow get screwed if their votes were counted equally.
    2
  4. Bluedragon094 If a slim majority gives an entire state's electoral votes to one person it's tyranny of the majority, at least is as much if not more of a tyranny of the majority than a simple popular vote. You can't make a consistent argument for one that doesn't apply to the other. In fact you haven't even made any kind of case as to how the electoral college is a sensible or fair system. You've only fear mongered the popular vote, and insisted that the parties take turns like children, which has nothing to do with the electoral college. Also are you saying the tyranny of a minority is a good thing? Or are you just not understanding your own arguments again? If a larger group of people picking the president against the wishes of a smaller group is "tyranny of the majority" than a small group picking president against the wishes of a larger group is tyranny of a minority. If it's not tyranny than neither is the reverse, it's called winning an election, something you only call tyranny when you don't like results.
    2
  5. Economic power decides things regardless of whether the system favors rural voters. In fact rural voters have basically voted against the kinds of infrastructure and regulatory environment that gives them economic power, so even under that framework it's still shitty to give them a disproportionate influence.
    2
  6. Brian Lopez There are big cities in most states, it doesn't really help things since the electoral college is based on states not anything smaller.
    1
  7. Bluedragon094 Yes it is there for a reason, that reason is you could not count a popular vote efficiently in the 1780s and the constitution had to give power to the states so that the states would ratify it, they were basically like EU countries back then. If anything you're projecting, and you only like this system because it is the only way you can have any political power.
    1
  8. Bluedragon094 Ironic since a slim majority of votes in a given state gives all electors to 1 candidate. Tyranny of a minority is still worse than tyranny of a majority.
    1
  9. Khalkara The vast majority of the country does not live in rural areas, that hasn't been true in over a century. In the modern world we have a thing called mechanized agriculture. Great big machines doing the work of dozens of families with animal and manual labor, running the Joads off their land, wonderful stuff really. Also prove your statement with facts.
    1
  10. Evidentialist Ironically you have no evidence for that.
    1
  11. gisforgary You can't use evidence to persuade Evidentialist, it doesn't think in those terms. Well to the degree that what it does can be "thinking" to any extent.
    1
  12. Evidentialist Kind of ironic then that your ignorance of what lies over the horizon rivals someone from Alabama.
    1
  13. That is a lovely and concise explanation that has no bearing on reality and does not stand up to scrutiny.
    1
  14. Nothingman76 It's very easy to scrutinize. As ***** said, its stupid. The states aren't making the decision, they pass it off to the voter, and the voters aren't making the decision because the system doesn't recognize millions of votes.
    1
  15. Nothingman76 ""The states are not making the decisions" and yet each candidate is receiving electoral votes on a state by state basis " And that is the contradiction, and reading about the squabbling and ad hoc way that the current system was designed doesn't change that. It only explains it and undermines it's legitimacy.
    1