subgenius wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 1:57 am
You understand that...
I suppose it shouldn’t be surprising that literally everything you said in this post is factually wrong.
subgenius wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 1:57 am
…you are just displacing a popular vote model with needless math, right?
That is false. MeDotOrg's excellent proposal is NOT mathematically equivalent to a popular vote. In a popular vote, every vote is worth the same as every other vote. In MeDotOrg's model, voters in smaller states still get an outsized vote, i.e. the 580,000 voters in Wyoming would still jointly control 3 EC votes, while the 39.5 million voters in California would still only jointly control 55 EC votes. Thus, one single vote from Wyoming would still be worth 3.7 votes from California.
subgenius wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 1:57 am
The whole purpose of the electoral college is to give the minority a voice and meaningful influence.
That is false. The purpose of the electoral college is to give outsized influence to smaller states
and to provide a circuit breaker where the statesmen in the EC could effectually overrule the voice of the people if the people voted for an incompetent fraud like, well, Donald J. Trump.
States can and have made it illegal to be a "faithless elector", and somehow the Supreme Court thinks this is Constitutional. So even when somebody has the moral and civic duty to be a faithless elector, they are forbidden from doing their duty. So one of the purposes of the EC is now moot.
The unfortunate consequences of the way the EC currently works is that because of winner-take-all within a state (or a NE/ME congressional district),
most votes do not to matter. The EC failed at making the votes of
small states more important. What it does is make the votes of
swing states more important. That is why presidential candidates went on dozens of trips to the large state of PA and totally ignored small states.
If we moved to MeDotOrg's system, all votes would matter, and candidates would much rather pick up an extra vote in Wyoming or Alaska than pick up another vote in Pennsylvania or Florida. That is because individual votes in small states would actually be worth more than votes in large states. This would cause attention, love, TV ads, and mass mailings to be sent to all voters, with commensurately more money be spent on voters from smaller states.
subgenius wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 1:57 am
By definition a true "democracy" suppresses the minority because it is a product of majority rules...a.k.a. the most votes wins.
That is false. A true democracy doesn't suppress "the minority," unless you define "minority" as the people who lose. By your definition, the white, middle-class men who voted for Trump are "the minority" are being "suppressed." What stupid redefinitions of the words "minority" and "suppressed"!
subgenius wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 1:57 am
Ironic how so many people that claim to be members of the "party protecting minorities" is opposed to an election system that does just that.
That is false. Most people aren't from swing states so you could say that the current system protects the elite status of voters from swing states. But that isn't what most people think of when you refer to a minority.
