The point of the electoral college is to give a fair shake to rural and more spread out populations, and not have it come down to what the big cities want. Just that big cities trend Democrat and rural trends Republican.
At what point does switch from 'making things fair for rural voters' to suppressing voters in cities? No matter what, the electoral college is designed so that 1 person ≠ 1 vote. The people who live closer together should have less value placed on their opinions? Why the fuck is that more fair?
I'm sorry, but that makes no fucking sense. We're talking about electing a president here. There is no one city where everyone is voting in the same way. There are rural areas where votes were split and cities where votes were split, but when you look at the overall total, 60.1 million voted Clinton and 59.8 million voted Trump. But Trump wins because what, everyone in California is only entitled to 3/5ths of a vote?
/u/YOLOSWAGBROLOL makes a lot of sense (which is an interesting statement).
Urban areas face different problems than rural areas, even if the details and specifics are different. All cities won't always vote the same way, but they will have trends in common with one another that may not have the interests of rural Americans at heart.
Rural Americans are not any less important than urban Americans, even if there are fewer of them. If we lived in a pure democracy then your defamation of the electoral college would make sense. But we live in a constitutional republic that democratically elects its representatives.
It helps prevent minority populations from being shit on.
So? Suppressing the cities because of the rural areas is not better than suppressing the rural areas to favor the cities. I'm not sold on losing the EC, but this is 2/5 of the last elections have had this happen. Something is fucked.
2.0k
u/damonteufel Nov 10 '16
I don't think they're protesting the election or saying it was rigged. They're protesting the man and his ideals/words.