How about everyone eats what they want? Not everything needs to be decided by the federal government.
Not a single person answered the question, which is WHERE they should eat, not what.
You're assuming that there isn't a pizza store called "Pizza!" and a restaurant called this old shoe that serves shoes.
The electoral college is a weird vestige of an earlier time. Each state gets apportioned a vote equal to the number of senators and congressmen they get; so the least populous states get an outsized voice in appointing a President.
When the law to cap the size of the US house to 435 representatives was passed in the very early 1900s - the US population was only ~90m. If instead the size of the elected body was allowed to grow in line with population, the US would have something closer to ~1,600 representatives currently, and as a result the electoral college would be much more equitable.
Please tell me votes from certain states aren't worth more than votes from other states in America...
Sort of. The idea is to avoid giving California power to decide policy for the entire country.
Not in a straightforward manner, no. One vote is just one vote. Most states are winner takes all, so the simple majority winner of, say, California takes all the electoral votes in California. It just so happens that California has less electoral votes per capita than states like Wyoming.
Well the senate is composed of 2 legislators from each state, so technically and in practice smaller states can band together effectively and distort policy that a majority of the people would be for. Theres a strong argument that my vote in Maine carries more political weight than a vote in california when it comes to the senate. This has allowed the southern states to drag their feet on policy over the years, and caused a lot of questions about representation in the country. So moving down the line, our presidential elections use an electoral college where house seats (which are restricted and tied to the population + senate seats = EC votes) So when it comes to electing presidents a state like maine with 1M people is punching way above its representation weight compared to california. Most of the EC votes are winner takes all which is the reason why california votes blue and alabama votes red for the president. Its also the reason why Nebraska and maine split their votes to offer people fair represenation in their districts.
TLDR: Yes and its mathematically supported
Rhode Island
Even i forget they are a state sometime.
votes from certain states aren’t worth more than votes from other states in America
There you go. Though, for the record: votes from certain states are worth more than votes from other states in America.
We need the electoral college because without it the ignorant masses might elect an dangerously unqualified reactionary demagogue they saw on a reality TV show.
Thank goodness that will never happen
Well maybe it'd happen once. but certainly not twice. Right?
That sounds like the plot of Idiocracy.
That'd be insane if it actually happened. Could you imagine!?
Don't worry, there are more than sufficient checks and balances in place to make sure that kind of situation could never occur!
Now do the US Senate.
Ed: Where should we eat? I say pizza.
Ann: Pizza!
Ty: Pizza!
Liz: Pizza!
Ed: Alright, pizza it is! Oh, right, I forgot we have to figure out what the voters will eat. I guess they can have this old shoe. Now, back to pizza!
Bravo!
The Senate was never designed to be proportionate to a state's population. The House was.
It's fine to be against the idea of the Senate, but you should at least make sure you understand why it was created in the first place. That is, to create a union of states where each one has a certain level of autonomy.
The Senate is meant to represent each state's individual interests in a national legislature.
Sometimes the interests of a local municipality don't perfectly align with the interests of a state writ large. Which is why we have two houses: one to represent each state, and one that's proportionate to population and represents the districts within a state.
The real issue, in my opinion, is the Reapportionment Act of 1929 that put a hard cap on the number of members of the House of Representatives at 435 seats.
It was created because the founders didn’t trust democracy. Shay’s Rebellion had them nervous about too much democracy taking wealth from the ruling class.
This would only make since as an example of the Electoral College if you adding something to adjust for everyone's theoretical impact on the meal.
If every voted but Liz was also paying a larger percentage of the bill than everyone else then it would make sense that her opinion outweighs everyone else.
Let's let the class decide what type of pizza to get.
Counting the votes, pepperoni wins.
Counting the votes at each table, then each counting the winner per table, pepperoni wins.
Arbitrarily dividing each table into "groups" of students, then adding those groups up to determine which choice won the table, then counting the tables... anchovies wins!
I bet Liz from Wyoming votes to eat the shoe at like 90% of meals, but argues that she's totally different from all the other shoe eaters.
Hold on now, Liz only wants everyone else to eat shoes - she still wants pizza for herself! That's what she's gonna get, right? ...Right?
Land doesn't vote. People do. End the Electoral College now.
Where
pizza
shoe
Me, off-camera: these people are idiots
"I'm so tired, I could eat a horse"
I think you mean 'at horse'
This has been the electoral college
This makes the most sense as a "who to vote for" in the [private] primary systems we use to determine who to vote for in our very openly rigged two party system. We/the "two parties" purposely drag the parties to extremes by having their primaries in certain states and candidates are driven to court extremes and we pretend that's good as many valid candidates are "weeded out" that way. (Again, it's a private system, So even non-centrist candidates, famously Bernie, can just be ignored as the party chooses who they want)
TIL pizza is a where.
Could a voting bloc of Democrats move to Wyoming pretending to be Republican and then swing the vote before the RNC has any idea what happened. If they are so sparsely populated it can't be that hard to outvoted them.
Sure but who the fuck wants to move to Wyoming?
Well almost 200k people would need to move there. Making Puerto Rico a state would probably be easier.
as a senator she would have alot more voting power in congress.
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
