Quote (Ghot @ Sep 14 2020 10:10am)
Good thing, that through the electoral college... it does. If not, this whole country would be run by California and New York.
So instead, we choose to give voting rights to square miles of land instead of actual people. Got it.
Quote (InsaneBobb @ Sep 14 2020 10:53am)
Take it down to a micro level, stop focusing on such a macro level. Make it personal, so it's more understandable. For example:
Imagine that you, a person, own a property, with a house, a barn, and a greenhouse. You have a family of 5, couple cars. Couple are children, you're husband and wife, and you have a working or college child. You pay your taxes, keep a clean yard, a swept sidewalk, and do all your duties as a good, upstanding citizen.
Now, next door, there's a section 8 housing complex of 30 homes full of nothing but single mothers, with an average of two children each. It's run down, somewhat crime ridden, lawns are shit, and dirty as fuck. Your houshold, though it holds 5, only has 3 that can vote. The housing complex has 30 who can vote. Now, those 30 look at you and say, "They have more, we want that." So they hold a vote on whether or not property tax rate should be raised from 1.39% to 50%. Vote passes, 30 to 3. Of course, right? They don't pay property taxes, how does it harm them?
Now, let's face it, you had your plan and it was working out, but now you're swamped. 50% property tax rate? Your $200K house now just popped a $100K/year rent cost. Sorry, you can no longer afford to live there. Your choice? Pick up and move, or eventually lose everything you have, and end up in section 8 yourself.
So let's say you pick up and move. Okay! Due to the law that was passed, your property now has a basic 10 year cost of $1m in taxes, let alone the $200K property value. Yet it's still a basic 5 person home with enough of a yard to justify a barn and a small greenhouse. Good suburban home, worth exactly what you thought you were going to pay. So, who's gonna buy? Answer: Nobody is going to buy it for the house, or the barn, or the greenhouse. A developer will buy it, and build section 8 housing. The developer will profit, and now your lot is going to turn into the same exact garbage as your neighbor's lot.
That is the basic lesson of the tyranny of the majority. They THOUGHT they were voting in something that would help improve their situation. Instead, they forced you out (or into their situation as well). A developing company will profit, the government will profit as they now will gain control over many more families at the medial price of development, and there will be that many more people who will vote to take shit away from others, to (not) give to themselves.
This is exactly what major failing cities like Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, etc. do to the state that supports them. They take all their shit, and utilize it to support the metro areas. Meanwhile, because the voter base that makes it possible expects free shit, they expand the free shit. And as the true voter base (people wanting free shit) gets more, they want more. And more. And more. In order to continue providing more, as you're driving out those who're providing that more, or bankrupting them and putting them into the same "beg not work" situation you have to expand the area of influence, gain a wider voting base. You also have to infringe more into higher and higher levels of income, stock, property, and business. But as you're doing so, you start losing all your industry, skilled workers, and innovators. Why? Well, ask Elon Musk.
The reason the Electoral College exists is to prevent the simple tyranny of the majority from destroying the liberty of all. The Constitution expressly forbids unwilling labor. It's considered slavery. But if all it takes is a simple majority vote to take all the fruits of a person's labor, that labor has just become unwilling. Part of what the electoral college does is say, "Just because there are fewer people in these 50 counties than those 3 counties doesn't mean you can take all our shit to appeal to your voting base. Instead, you have to work and negotiate with each other to make things work. And if cities implement terrible policies, and all that's left are the beggers living off the state (including the elected officials themselves)? Then the city fails, people move, and the businesses start up elsewhere.
The system works. The attempt to burn everything down is merely another effort by the hands out crowd to take by force what they refuse to produce for themselves.
You explain the idea very well, but that does not mean that the idea is objectively good.
What you're saying is that certain ideologies / concerns (e.g. people will vote for things, not knowing that those things will backfire) are built into the system, which essentially implies that part of the decision is being made over the heads of the voters, instead of it being made democratically. As long as there will be multiple parties representing multiple demographic groups, you'll never be able to make everyone agree with a system that does not count votes in a neutral way.