the-pi-guy said:
No I think it could change things, and I think it would be for the better. Oh no, presidents might have to work to appeal to more people, what a great shame that would be.
Because states aren't people.They can't get what they want. You're heavily assuming that states are homogenous, which they aren't. You're letting the 60% that are pro-life make the choice for the 40% that aren't in those particular states. In the case of some states, like my own, where the state is heavily gerrymandered, despite the fact that like 55% of the state tends to vote blue, Republicans control the state government here. So we're not even going to get what we want here. More importantly here, getting what someone wants, isn't necessarily good for them. People have perspectives on what abortion is, what it's like, why women get them done that isn't strictly accurate. In short people can be subject to propaganda, and get their lives ruined despite thinking that's what they want. |
Fair enough, bear in mind that cuts both ways... liberal presidents would need to to appeal to places like Texas.
I can't help if people vote against their own interest. I believe in the right to vote, such is life on the results. I don't have the right to override a person's vote, regardless if I agree with it or not.
And luckily we live in a country with 50 states, we get to pick. I've lived in 3 states. And frankly there are a good 10 states I would never live in. Don't like your state, move. I did, more than once.
|
i7-13700k |
|
Vengeance 32 gb |
|
RTX 4090 Ventus 3x E OC |
Switch OLED







