Chrkeller said:
The system is setup to ensure a couple of states don't rule the country, which is quite an intelligent system. Winning the PV, while losing the EC, means liberals do well on the east and west coast, while doing poorly in middle America. Middle America is the average person.  Meaning their messaging is complete shit via limited appeal.  Also, and I'm baffled people don't see this, change the rules and voting behavior changes...  so the whole PV argument is nonsense. Good luck folks, hopefully I'm wrong, but I think Trump takes the WH and GOP takes the senate.... which would mean liberals aren't connecting with middle Americans, like I said 100 pages ago. 🤔 |
It was an intelligent system insomuch as it enabled the 13 states to unite together in an era where it would take two weeks to get from Boston to Philadelphia. In the modern age, it has long outlived its usefulness. Especially when the Senate serves as a check on large state power as South Dakota and North Dakota with a combined population of under 2 million have as much power in the Senate as the 50 million people in North and California. Really indefensible. And unnecessary that 1/2 of the legislature and the presidency should both be shifted towards smaller states.
Voting patterns would change if you switched to a popular vote, as people's votes would matter, more people would go out to vote especially in non-swing states. I suspect this would be a net win for democrats, but even if it wasn't, it would be a fairer system, so it should be done.
The argument that their message is shit cuts both ways. One could also say the message of the republican party is shit because it doesn't appeal to voters on the coasts. But it really isn't a coastal thing. Democratics tend to perform well in any area with high population density. That is the main reason they are competitive in Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, and even recently Texas and Alaska. Because those states have populations that are heavily centralized in certain locations.
You could say it is shit because it doesn't appeal to rural voters or Trump voters... but that may just be inevitable. A large portion of Trump's voters are Chrsitian nationalists who believe that their religion should be imposed on others. You kind of can't meet them halfway on that. Likewise if there are people who think abortion should be banned in all cases and a ten year old rape victim should be forced to carry a child to term... there just isn't any middle ground.
Beyond that, some of Trump's voters are just so far gone that any appeal is going to fail. Of those rural American voters, how many are believe that Hatiians are eating cats and Democrats are making hurricanes? How do you reason people out of that? And what about people who are legitimately just hateful towards certain groups such as immigrants, Jews, Muslims, or whatever? You just can't find a position that's going to reach them without alienating more people on the other side.
Personally, I think Harris is running her campaing about as well as I can expect. Honestly don't know what I would suggest she do differently. She may not win. But, at the end of the day, maybe we've just gone too far down the rabbit hole for someone to win with sane policies and common sense. That is the flaw of any democracy, particularly one with our fucked electoral system. Some people want a spray tanned fascist. If there are enough of those, the messaging won't matter.
Last edited by JWeinCom - 5 days ago
