politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
This is a boring narrative. The system isn't stacked in favor of the GOP, it's stacked in favor of parties that play by the actual rules. If a party can't make a compelling message to multiple different states, it's on them.
Wrong.
Why? because it feels better to say the system is rigged than admit Democrats sold out the working class across the country and are reaping the benefits?
What do you mean why? The electoral college has been utterly broken since they froze the number of house seats in 1929. It gets worse every year as population increases. This causes low population states to have way more representation in the House, influence over the presidency, and through that and the Senate, the SCOTUS, than they're designed to. And since racism seems to play well to the rural folk who love to vote against their own interests, this has given Republicans a significant advantage.
This is on top of the blatant gerrymandering that Republicans do in red states (look at Ohio which voted under maps that were deemed illegal). And the blatant voter suppression actions taken every cycle.
Are corporate Democrats also failing to be appealing? Yes, but that doesn't mean the board isn't also tilted against them. The fact that Clinton had like 8 million more votes in 2016 but still "lost" is proof. SCOTUS stealing the election from Gore is also proof.
The low limit on the house is a problem for representation in general, but it doesn't change the presidential election much. Trump would have still won the election if there were 800 representatives in the house, though it would have been closer.
The popular vote is irrelevant for the presidency, so your proving my point by bringing it up. It's not relevant to the rules of the election.
False. The distribution of seats requires a lot of skewing to fit the vastly different sizes of populations.
I'm not proving your point at all. The fact that we don't listen to the cast majority of people to represent the country as a whole is dumb. The fact that your presence in a state that votes differently from you actually works AGAINST you, is even dumber.
The apportionment formula is straightforward, you can find calculators to see what would happen as more representatives gets added. It's not magic.
I never said it was magic. I said it was grossly skewed and broken as a system
The system is fine, the cap is too small, but that could be fixed, and much more easily than making a new system.
The system is extremely flawed and the cap made it more broken. Winner take all in almost every state makes it actively detrimental to the majority of voters.
Hahahaha WHAT?
The rules are get 270 electoral votes, not get the most votes. This generally requires winning the majority of states.
Except you can "win" the election with something absurd like 27 votes, against 100 million.
Any system where that's an actual possibility is fucking stupid.
Sure in theory if only a single person voted in the 12 largest states you could win that way, but that's not really possible.
You can also "normally" win just the smallest states, and win with states representing only ~25% of the population. If you want something more realistically fucking stupid and completely disqualifying for an electoral system
That's equally hypothetical, winning the ~36 smallest states by a single vote and getting no other votes.
Any result that have happened yet is hypothetical. The fact that it is possible should be immediately disqualifying