• Z3k3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    7 days ago

    As a non American from what I understand about the electoral collage is the land has more say.

    • Drusas@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 days ago

      Yeah, this meme is backwards if it’s supposed to be explaining the electoral college.

      • riplin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 days ago

        It’s also a picture of Vancouver, Canada, so it’s wrong on all levels.

    • Wogi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      Kind of?

      The electoral college is no longer functioning as designed, and so voters in certain less populated areas have slightly more weight per vote than those in heavily populated areas. Only because the number of districts was artificially capped. So some districts have more people than several states do.

      States also get two bonus votes for some reason.

      The argument was that if someone posed a genuine threat to democracy and had a chance at winning the popular vote, the delegates could step in and vote for someone else.

      A consequence of that, is that exactly the opposite can happen too.

      • Formesse@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 days ago

        It is ABSOLUTELY functioning as designed. But you have to understand - Tyranny of the Majority; the threat of Religious Despots: Those two things were VERY MUCH in the minds of the founding fathers.

        The argument is sometimes said as “they can step in” but in reality, that is up to the rules regulating how votes are cast based on state rules.

        But you must first understand: The Founding fathers understood that Tyranny of the Majority could be a serious threat (see religious Tyranny and conflict that has lead to all kinds of problems and persecutions throughout history). It’s complicated.

        Now: If you want to argue that election reform is needed in the modern day: I ABSOLUTELY 100% AGREE. I would LOVE to see an abolishoning of first past the post, and party centric electoral voting - in favour of Ranked Choice Ballots where it all pans out through one single vote. But who benefits? Well: It’s not the DNC, and it’s not the GOP: SO good luck getting the constitutional amendment needed to make that a reality.

        Thing is: We COULD start - at municipal elections, elections for small positions. That is the BEST place to start but odds are, even there, you are going to have the DNC, and GOP fighting it at every step of the way, because that is a DISASTER for party control over elected officials: After all, in a world of Mass to Mass communication, you don’t need a big party to organize campaign drives - you can set up your social media posts, you can do a tonne of efforts and coordination remotely which means you can be out and talking to people basically anywhere in the country, and still be able to work to coordinate efforts directly.