90
More Republicans are voting early, helping break records. Nearly 19 million ballots cast so far.
(apnews.com)
Stats screenshot taken at the time of this post.
this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2024
90 points (93.3% liked)
politics
19097 readers
3827 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
States with higher QoL should have heavier weighted votes. Boom tons of problems suddenly getting worked on.
One human, one vote. Nothing else is ethical.
It really is worth remembering that the Electoral College was designed the way it is to support slavery: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/electoral-college-racist-origins/601918/
The TLDR here is that this gave the South more voting power because they could partially count the non-voting slaves in coming up with the number of electors. And since the slaves couldn't vote, the elector system allowed their masters to essentially steal their 3/5s of a vote.
I have an unpopular opinion, If anything I think it should be switched over to large states have the same amount of Electoral College votes as small state, no more one state having 20+ votes versus one state having four make every state have equal say.
One state one vote, that vote is decided based off the popular vote of the state.
It makes zero sense to me that in a country where every state is supposed to have equal rights that States like California can have 54 votes, where States like Rhode Island and Maine have less than five.
The system would also Force our candidates to focus on more than just the Battleground States because it makes it so every state is a Battleground state, the amount of people that are in the state don't matter since the vote is based off popular vote so everyone's vote counts in the first place, while it also keeps the protections that the electoral college has allowing the smallest things to keep having a say.
I have no idea the impact such a system would do with the current electoral system, but I do believe it would be fair
I feel like that would become a self fulfilling prophecy very quickly, and result in America constantly punching down on the poorest states (instead of just the poorest people, like they do now)
Honestly I'd prefer that at this point. I'd like to be punching Alabama and Florida for failing their own people.
Stupid should be painful.
Why are we okay with this system where we allow the red states to shoot their citizens in the foot constantly and then expect the blue states to keep sending them all kinds of aid?
Let’s say everybody in a state is equally culpable for electing shit leaders for the sake of the hypothetical: this would be fine at first, but what happens if Florida gets their shit together in 30 years and makes a unified push for a good leader and real quality of life improvements for the people? (please suspend your disbelief lmao). All their votes together would mean nothing because of the shit QoL 30 years of republicans would get them, and they’d be powerless to enact any positive change unless the states doing the best under the new system decided to allow it. That’s what I mean by self fulfilling prophecy; poor states can only get poorer and rich ones get richer.
I think you're confusing state government with federal government.
The state governments can still enact their own state laws all they want. The high QoL states would still be voting for increased QoL at a federal level. Which would rise the tide even for the dipshits.
I just don’t have any faith in the kind of good state laws could do if the state is already at rock bottom. Seems like it’d require federal intervention (that would be against the interests of all the rich states) imo, tho I can’t pretend to know where Americans like to draw the line for when federal aid is okay lol.
I doubt that, instead it would be about the reps in those states working to actually lift the lives of their people up, instead of shitting all over them for ridiculous ideological reasons.
Ooh, what a fantastic idea. I love that.