that is not what the electoral college does at all.
it disproportionately counts the votes of landowners as being worth far more than those who do not own vast swathes of land.
the deck is hardly “stacked against” people living in rural america, unless you count having to accept massive subsidies to not grow any product in your field, because uncle sam says economy line wants less corn, as being disadvantaged.
preedit edit: not to say there isnt extreme poverty in rural america, there is, just that it is completely irrelevant to the electoral college
Assuming what you say is true, what does it mean? It means that capitalism is unsustainable. Farmers armed with industrial agriculture will compete themselves into poverty and destroy the environment in the process.
most of the time (read:always) the “do not grow” subsidies are paid out after the product has already been grown, and often after its already been harvested. they just get paid above market value to not bring it to market. so it has literally zero to do with preventing a dustbowl
theoretically it could be used that way, but it isnt the actual purpose
as soon as you step foot in Wyoming, you become a minority
sorry, I don’t make the rules
I am an Ohio nationalist. I believe that the natural-born men and women of Ohio are the purest of the human race, and that all others are inferior. I believe that Ohio should secede from the union, and form a mighty empire, turning small Ohio into an intercontinental force to be reckoned with. I believe that Ohio should conquer all of America and rename it “greater Ohio”. I believe the people of Ohio must revolt against the governor and form a great council. I am an Ohio nationalist, glory to Ohio.
YOU KNOW I DON’T THINK THE PERSON WHO DID THIS WOULD ENJOY IF WE TOOK THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE APPROACH AND MADE VOTES OF MINORITES BE WORTH MORE THAN RURAL AMERICANS because that is what the electoral college does it makes people votes be worth more or less depending
Seems like “rural americans suffer the same issues literally the entire proletariat suffer under capitalism” as a method of claiming oppression.
The problem is that they feel the injustice of it all and think that is a unique experience of their group instead of the standard experience under capitalism. They therefore argue that they are oppressed because they don’t recognise it as something everyone is suffering. This causes them to lash out because they don’t like minorities receiving “special treatment” for their actually-unique oppression while they are seeming not getting any benefits for their perceived oppression which is really just capitalist suffering of the working class.
Cutting through this mindset is a matter of making them realise their “oppression” is the worker class experience under capitalism and not a uniquely comparable form of oppression like that which trans people, poc, or others experience for immutable characteristics. This might make them turn their feelings towards the real cause.
Totally. I didn’t mean to imply that rural Americans aren’t uniquely oppressed, but Democrats/Republicans don’t offer them anything. So they go after the ‘other’ because they don’t think they’re being treated fairly. There’s a reason when someone runs on fixing the plights of the working class, the fundraising map looks like this.
Except it doesn’t. The states that are counted due to the electoral college are predominantly white, which makes them hardly a racial minority in the US. The electoral college made a modicum of sense when voting was scattered at best, but it’s yet another relic of a time long since passed. “Minorities” in the colloquial sense is a liberal platitude to turn black and brown and LGBTQ folks into a monolith that is easily weaponized against itself like in the image above (“If I’m a white guy living in the inner city then I’m a minority!!!” Which, locally, yes, but broad scale, no). The EC is bad and outdated because it distances the people from democracy. And while chuds love to trot out “we’re a republic, not a democracy!” a republic is not possible without some form of democracy because who chooses the representatives then? A republic is a democracy. You just vote for a representative to vote for shit you don’t want to be bothered to directly vote on, which means we’re not a direct democracy, but no country has ever been that because it would be insanely unwieldy even with the internet! I wish I could be buzzed at work because at least then I could argue this with a sense of confidence and coherence Lol.
One of the largest conglomerations of humanity at that point in history, and mostly not larger due to sanitary and food scarcity restraints on density.
Also far less educationally advanced, as most of the residents weren’t even literate.
Yet it established both short and long term value of a political system that guaranteed equity in representation, relative to the petty monarchies and theocracies and military dictatorships common to the surrounding regions.
even libs know the electoral college favours swing states more than anyone else.
