Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
It's The USA! The answer is always racism. This time, it's because slave owners didn't want their low level of white male land owners to mean they wouldn't have any say in the government, so low population areas get more voting power and significance than high population areas
I don't know if that is actually factual. When the system was created it took a long time to communicate with everyone and having a centralized place such as an electoral college made logistical sense. The US is pretty spread out even today. 200 years ago the technology needed to get all of those states to vote was not as easy as calling someone.
It was definitely part racism.
The Three-fifths Compromise was an agreement reached during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention over the inclusion of slavesin a state's total population. This count would determine: the number of seatsin the House of Representatives; the number of electoral votes each state would be allocated; and how much money the states would pay in taxes. Slave holding states wanted their entire population to be counted to determine the number of Representatives those states could elect and send to Congress. Free states wanted to exclude the counting of slave populations in slave states, since those slaves had no voting rights. A compromise was struck to resolve this impasse.
Emphasis mine, but the electoral college was originally disproportionate for more than one reason.
Oh for sure it was disproportionate. No doubt.
States' Senate and House seats are added together to calculate the number of votes each state gets in the Electoral College. The Senate is well known for overrepresenting low population states because each state gets 2 seats regardless of their population. Because the House of Representatives has been capped at 435 seats it also overrepresents low population states. These 538 interactive graphs do a good job of visualizing that. edit: there are two graphs
Also, states that vote more heavily for a candidate do not count any more heavily for one candidate or another. It doesn't matter if 60% of your state votes blue or 90%.
Meanwhile a purple state that votes 51% red gives all of their votes to the Republican.
Unless you live in Maine or Nebraska.
Is the answer dead racist white guys? I bet the answer is some dead racist white guys.
18th century solutions for 21st century problems
Because USA is a flawed democracy. No more explanation needed.
No more explanation needed.
This is a question a user posted in another thread.
While I understand their suppressions are an attack on democracy and an attempt to make voting more difficult, why does it disproportionately affect Democrats? Are Republicans just more willing to jump through loops?
I have seen many similar questions and discussions on Reddit in the past before I switched to Lemmy. When one person asks a question it's safe to assume there are more people with the same question, but aren't asking.
Over the course of the year, accelerationist rhetoric has run rampant on Lemmy. People need to know that no matter where they live their vote is desperately needed. Republicans have the advantage in our flawed democracy. The Republican strategy is to sow doubt about the election so they can overturn the results. The closer the count is whether that be the total popular vote count nationwide, a statewide count, a countywide count, or even one polling station's count, the more likely that is to happen. So every vote matters no matter where a person lives.
The idea that Republicans might be willing to "jump through more hoops" would certainly align with Lakoff's ideas (from 2004, mind):
https://medium.com/@ennuid/george-lakoffs-framing-101-7b88e9c91dac
Everything you write is true, but the most important thing is that it's not supposed to be like that in a democracy. It all boils down to the system in USA being flawed.
the most important thing is that it’s not supposed to be like that in a democracy. It all boils down to the system in USA being flawed.
My argument's point is that this is useful rhetorical shorthand, but there are uniformed people who don't know what it is short for. Posts like this are a useful way to educate those people, so they can use and understand that shorthand. Especially when we are this close to the election and these kinds of questions are on peoples' minds. edit: typo
OK that's a good point.
not* a democracy
The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The Guardian:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom
Wikipedia about this source
Media Bias Fact Check | bot supportSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/19/election-electoral-college-explained