this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2024
403 points (97.9% liked)

politics

19159 readers
5938 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DogPeePoo@lemm.ee 39 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I agree. It’s fucked that a citizen in Wyoming has a vote weighted much more heavily than a citizen in California or New York.

However, as far as the Presidential race is concerned we have been screwed at least twice (Georgia G.W. Bush 2000, Trump 2016) by the electoral college usurping the mandate from the masses.

Gotta start somewhere. Out with the electoral college, we are not commuting by horseback any longer.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

we are not commuting by horseback any longer.

Is there some reference specifically to the electoral college and horses, or was this just about the passage of time?

Half of me thinks there was something very specific about horses and the college after you wrote that lol.

[–] Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca 19 points 1 day ago (2 children)

One of the arguments for the electoral college was that news travels by horseback and a new development needed a representative at Washington to accout for it.

These representatives (electors) must therefore be able to vote differently that how they were asked to if they deem the situation requires it. Say it's uncovered that one candidate was plotting treason, or has a heart attack.

Because we can communicate instantaneously now, electors are not needed to vote for people or states anymore; a direct vote is easily accomplished.

The unfair allocation of those votes is a different aspect of the Electoral College, but also a reason to be rid of it.

Ah thanks, I knew about this part "tne candidate was plotting treason, or has a heart attack." but didn't know the back story on that.

[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 4 points 14 hours ago

I sure wish electors would vote differently if a candidate was plotting treason.