• @Soulg
    link
    4
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Which completely deprives them of representation. Even if they only got 10%, that 10% of people will have no voice.

    It needs to be more like Nebraskas current method but in every state, along with ranked choice voting. Winner takes all, let alone FPTP and the EC as a whole, are horribly stupid.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -42 months ago

      It doesn’t matter how you change the voting system. Only one person can be president. And once a president is chosen, by whatever means, anyone who wanted someone else “has no voice” by your definition.

      • Jason Kraus
        link
        fedilink
        42 months ago

        @FlowVoid @Soulg true, but then it won’t be the *majority* of people who didn’t “have a voice” which is a stark improvement over the current situation

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -62 months ago

          The president almost always gets a majority of the popular vote.

          Of course I think the president should always, not almost always, get a majority. But that just requires switching to a national popular vote, not one of the various other schemes under discussion.

          • Enkrod
            link
            fedilink
            32 months ago

            Republicans won both 2000 and 2016 despite losing the popular vote.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              02 months ago

              Right, which is why I said almost always instead of always. Out of 57 contested elections, the popular vote winner won 52.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        12 months ago

        While we’re changing things that should be one of the things we change as well. There should not be a unitary executive with ability to override the will of the people. There should be a council or something similar where a group of views are represented and a decision come to. Making things more democratic is always a worthy goal.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            12 months ago

            False. The Senate is anti-democratic in intent. Meant to block the will of the people. And the house has been artificially capped for the last 100ish years. Becoming largely unrepresentative and horribly gerrymandered. It should be representative, democratic, and not over-ruleable by a single person or non speaking filibuster.