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.

  • Zaktor
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Gerrymandering only directly impacts the House, while the EC biases the presidential vote, and state sizes bias the senate. All three elected branches are badly selected and all three are biased towards the Republicans. Hard to say the House is more important than the presidency though.

    • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Some more fuckery with the house: Each state is supposed to get at least one representative, plus another representative per every so many people, right? And historically the house has expanded to fit the growing population, right?

      That’s not how it works anymore. They stopped expanding it when it was obvious the Republicans would never have a majority in the house ever again. Go look at the algorithm they use to determine how many representatives each state gets.

      • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        They stopped expanding it when it was obvious the Republicans would never have a majority in the house ever again.

        No.

        The size of the HoR was set in 1929 and since then the Democrats have controlled it for multiple years at a time. Heck at one point they were in control of it for 45 straight years! There’s been a number of multi-year stretches since 1929 where Democrats controlled BOTH bodies.

        https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2020/jun/25/control-house-and-senate-1900/

        The Re-Apportionment Act of 1929 that fixed the size of the HoR at its current 435 is a big chunk of the problem with the EC and quite a few other things. It needs to be undone.

      • Zaktor
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It was a bad idea necessary to bribe the small states into joining to keep the colonies together in a time with more important issues. The EC’s population bias was also intentional, it doesn’t make it not fundamentally undemocratic.

        And the admission of states has always been very political. They have been often admitted in pairs to maintain political parity of the time and other proposed states (the state of Sequoyah) were rejected for political reasons (balancing east-west states or just racism, you decide). There’s a reason statehood for Puerto Rico, a territory with more than enough people and no historical impediments like DC, isn’t just a formality of waiting for a request by its people.

        The Founding Fathers made a quite good first draft for modern democracy, but they weren’t oracles and they made compromises based on the political needs of the day. There’s a reason we don’t install American democracy in countries we regime-change.

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

          Democracy wasn’t intended, I agree with that, but I don’t think many wanted an entire democracy either, it wasn’t just about states wanting power but also about minority representation. I personally prefer a constitutional system to a democratic system.

          • Zaktor
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I mean, sure. They were also slaveholders. This is just trivia not something speaking to what should happen in the current day.

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

              Because the constitution was the charter, the binding contract underwhich previously separate political entities agreed to be governed. You can’t just change my rental contract to kick out my roommate midway through my term without following an established process we both signed on.

              • Zaktor
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Talking about the constitution protecting minority representation at anything but the state-vs-state level or acting like it’s a personal contract any of us at any point voluntarily entered into or could have rejected if not structured in this way is a laughable diversion. How it was made and that it exists as the current law of the land is irrelevant in a discussion of its current failures.

                Again, there’s a reason we don’t implement it in other countries. It persists here because of inertia and cynical resistance by a minority party that can’t win governing power without it, but it’s not a good system in a country that purports to gain moral justification for its government through all of its citizens being equal.

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

                  Yes it was a contract at a state to federal government level, furthermore, it is a binding concession of power from the federal government

                  through all of its citizens being equal.

                  Equality doesn’t mean democracy. Democracy grants a majority power over a minority.

                  • Zaktor
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Now 1 person 1 vote isn’t equal? Democracy is everyone has the right to state their preferences and be treated equally. That sometimes more people want the other thing isn’t a flaw in the system and in no way a justification to just give some people more votes. A tyranny of the majority is a whole lot better than a tyranny of the minority.

                    I swear there must be some kind of rural state indoctrination camp where people learn that 1 person 1 vote is actually bad and they’re rightfully entitled to more say than those dirty city-dwellers. All while talking about the minority rights carefully crafted by the slaveholding men who literally transferred votes from the slaves to their oppressors.