@Shadow. I'm just going to keep this as concisely, as possible.
Not to say you're wrong on voters in Wyoming and Vermont having 4x the voting power than those in Cali or Texas, but I would like to know how you came to that conclusion. A peer-reviewed study perhaps? Thanks. I think you make some good points. However, you have to take into account the different demographics of each state and those demographics are not equally distributed. A direct democracy will give certain minority opinions the shaft because the representation will not be there. You make good points on the protection of minority opinions from government oppression, but what about the outreach?
The thesis of your second paragraph is flawed in the implication that swing voters are monolithic. The swing voter can represent a variety of demographics and that plays an important role. The voters in the swing states tend to change in opinion more often than those in solid blue/red states which leads to my next point: the number of solid Democrat and solid Republican voters aren't equal. A direct democracy would work if distribution of Democrat, Republican, and unaffiliated voters were evenly distributed. However, such an ideal situation is impossible.
For your rebuttal on my third point, are you looking a population or voterbase? I'm asking this question because those two things are very different from each other. Also, there are significantly more than just five major cities in the US. You left out Philadelphia, Baltimore, Atlanta, Boston, Seattle, Denver, Portland, so forth and so forth. You make a good point on that urban voters aren't a monolith, but I think we can both agree that in general, urban voters tend to lean towards the left.
Anyways, I greatly appreciate your response. Thank you for approaching in a far more mature manner than... eh, I'll just leave it there 
| AsGryffynn said: You literally trashed all Latinos and Blacks in the US. You do realize they are minorities right? This system wasn't conceived for no good reason. Also, more Latinos voted for Trump than they did for Mitt Romney (for one, Trump won Florida's popular vote). The only reason Hillary has an advantage was because of bloody California. Considering California works as if they were their own country, thinking they should decide the election might be the most ridiculous, over the top statement I've ever heard. Also, the majority wasn't always better. The majority of people in Germany liked Hitler at the time, look how that panned out... If I wanted to tell you how it works, well, things might only be fair if you tell 33 percent of the American urban population to leave the country. Then we'd have an equal proportion of blue and red voters, then whoever yields loses. Otherwise, as I said, there's no reason for the GOP to exist. Trump did win the popular vote in MOST states. It only happens there are a handful whose population has the weight of dozens of states and renders this win pointless. Californians shouldn't decide for the rest of Americans who don't have the advantages they have. The special ones shouldn't call the shots, but people from across the country should have their say on who rules. If most of the country's states, rather than the people, choose their leader, you know most of the country will be represented, rather than a state with overcrowding issues. By the way, Trump was aware of this. He campaigned with the electoral college in mind, not for the popular vote. The fact he dyed blue states red alone seems like a hint he did pack more firepower than Hillary did, but not in the "fortress states" of Hillary's firewall. |
Here's a more concise version of your first paragraph
Sargon's Law - Whenever an ideologue makes a character judgement about someone they are debating with, that character judgement is usually true about themselves.
