Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SpookZero t1_j2sf3n0 wrote

Reply to comment by Fit-Anything8352 in Healey should give rural Massachusetts a seat at the table - The Boston Globe by GlobeOpinion

They can have their vote and their representation, they just can’t have extra representation. Why would anyone in America think their vote should matter more than others?

10

Fit-Anything8352 t1_j2sfb99 wrote

The article doesn't ask for extra representation in congress. Did you even read it?

−6

Fit-Anything8352 t1_j2sfx3a wrote

> Why would anyone in America think their vote should matter more than others?

Funny enough, that was actually motivation for the electoral college--because without it politicians would only campaign in California, New York, Florida, and Texas where the vast majority of the population lives. Or in other words, votes in large states would matter way more than votes in small states, regardless of political affiliation.

Funny right? That it wasn't completely arbitrary?

−9

brufleth t1_j2slzsq wrote

> that was actually motivation for the electoral college

You're leaving out the part where it was intentionally to give disproportionate power to places with fewer (white land owning) people. It was a shitty system to preserve shitty systems.

5

Fit-Anything8352 t1_j2smd4w wrote

Or in other words "make the (variable size) voting population of each state have approximately equal representation in congress" which is exactly what I said. Because the United States is a union of states, not a giant singular unit of government.

The US isn't and was never intended to be a true democracy like Switzerland.

1

brufleth t1_j2sqllc wrote

This state would be foolish to hold that up as a model to follow.

1

Fit-Anything8352 t1_j2sqtho wrote

Also didn't read the article? They aren't even asking for more congressional representation.

2

brufleth t1_j2suc7f wrote

They're asking for a special representative in the state government be created.

1

Fit-Anything8352 t1_j2supjp wrote

They're asking for a single officer in the governor's office, something that has been done in numerous other states. A single officer.

Not representation in congress.

2

PhiloBlackCardinal t1_j2sknsy wrote

>Or in other words, urban votes would matter way more than rural ones.

Wow, it's almost like more people live in urban areas than rural areas and this country's politics should reflect that. Funny right?

3

Fit-Anything8352 t1_j2sl39x wrote

> Why would anyone in America think their vote should matter more than others?

So are we just ignoring this now? Do you want everyone's vote to matter the same or not?

−1

PhiloBlackCardinal t1_j2slm2p wrote

> Why would anyone in America think their vote should matter more than others?

You should ask yourself this question. Everyone's vote should count the same. One vote is one vote. I don't know what's so hard to understand here. Less people live in rural areas, so naturally, their votes combined should count as less to fairly represent population. If more people lived in farms than cities, the system should stay the same.

Your argument is literally "all votes should be equal, but if everyone has equal votes that bad because rural populations get underrepresented".

3

Fit-Anything8352 t1_j2smwjt wrote

> Your argument is literally "all votes should be equal, but if everyone has equal votes that bad because rural populations get underrepresented".

The argument for the electoral college is "all states should have equal representation." The United States is a union of states, not a single state of 330 million people(the US is not Switzerland). If you vote by population, a state with a high population has more say in the election than one with a small population, it doesn't even have anything to do with urban vs rural.

5

PhiloBlackCardinal t1_j2so2yq wrote

The electoral college was a useful tool in the pre-Civil War era of US politics. The era when the federal government was nearly non-existent. Post-Civil War, it makes no sense. It's not 1850 anymore, states don't control the majority of functions in our daily lives. The Federal Government does.

States where more people live should have more of a say than states where no one lives. One person = one vote. It goes against the principles this country was founded on to believe otherwise.

5

Fit-Anything8352 t1_j2sos73 wrote

What? States do control the majority of functions in your daily life. Traffic laws, physical infrastructure, medical care, health insurance, water supply, electricity, education, etc. are all controlled by state law.

The federal government has very little say in anybody's day to day life.

2

BlaineTog t1_j2thxsa wrote

You can't win the Presidency with just California, New York, Florida, and Texas. Go after just the urban vote and you're doomed to failure. The electoral college fixes problems that don't exist anymore, if they ever did.

1