So funny story on trying to get this to federate:
https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/18177682/11384061
If anyone has any insight, please let me know.
it is a system designed to keep the voting power out of the hands of the voters’ and into the hands of electorates who decides based on what they are paid off to vote for but still allows for that illusion of voting that makes the voter feel like they have a voice
Electors do not get paid off to vote a certain way. They submit electoral votes according to who won their state.
Kind of tired of this “entire system is broken and corrupt” BS.
if the entire system were not broken and corrupt Roe v. Wade would have been codified, we would have universal healthcare, living wages, workers’ rights, better education, a police force not suppressing the citizens, we would protect the environment, Trump would not even be an option, and the Supreme Court would not be so corrupt
just because the Democrats say they are good because the Republicans are bad does not make them good and Republicans say the same shit
Faithless electors are not that common. Many states have laws against faithless electors which have been upheld by the Supreme Court. According to the ruling, states do not need a law to deal with faithless electors. They probably should still should make a law if they don’t already have one.
The U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously upheld laws across the country that remove or punish rogue Electoral College delegates who refuse to cast their votes for the presidential candidate they were pledged to support.
Monday’s Supreme Court decision, however, is so strong that it would seem to allow states to remove faithless electors even without a state law. Duke University School of Law professor Guy-Uriel Charles said that nonetheless, it would be prudent for states to pass laws to prevent electors from going rogue.
The problem with the Electoral College is that it favors minority rule. The votes each state gets are comprised of both House of Representatives and Senate seats from each state. The Senate and the House both favor low population states. The Senate because it gives each state two seats and the House because it’s capped at 435. Take a look at both graphs from 538.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/435-representatives/
Republicans tend to do well in low population states, so the electoral college favors Republicans, who won the popular vote once in the last six elections. So it’s not the illusion of a vote that’s the issue. We really do have a vote in this system.
The issue is that some people’s votes are more equal than others. Low populations state votes, when normalized for the electoral college, are worth more. A lot of people will say that only certain swing states matter, but that assumes everyone in non-swing states keeps voting at similar levels as before. If enough people in California who would vote Democrat decide that their votes don’t count and then don’t vote, then California turns red. So Democrats need more people to vote everywhere to compensate for this bias that Republicans benefit from.
The electoral college is why not voting or voting third party disproportionately effects the Democrats, they need more votes, because they tend to appeal to high population states whose votes are worth less.
Also, our first-past-the-post system mathematically results in a two-party system.
