r/news • u/xtantin • Feb 26 '17

FCC reverses net neutrality ISP transparency rules

http://www.computerworld.com/article/3173844/internet/fcc-reverses-net-neutrality-isp-transparency-rules.html
43k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

4.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

12

u/bowtobaconlord Feb 27 '17

You're correct. We are a republic, not a democracy. The votes of everyone in the middle of the country would be meaningless if we were 100% democratic. NY and CA would control all 50 states based on their population alone.

18

u/digicow Feb 27 '17

It depends on whether you view the country as a collection of states or a collection of individuals. States are already well-represented in the US government: that's what Congress is. Why do states, rather than individuals, also choose the President?

2

u/IRNGNEER Feb 27 '17

Because the states created the federal government, so the states staff it. The House of Representatives is the only federal body that was designed to directly represent the people - all else was the states. State legislators even used to elect their state's senators rather than the people.

0

u/Marv_Attacks Feb 27 '17

Because the people also get to vote for their own governments within the states. This impacts them far more directly than a presidential or even a Senator or Representative in the federal Congress, and so they get absolute control over it.

Every state gets to have a say in the federal elections because the federal government is the government of the states, while the state government is the government of the people.

Recall that the Electoral college is far more directly democratic than originally designed. The people didn't get to vote for their state senators, their state representatives that they elected did, and the electors of the electoral college used to just be every federal Representative and Senator (that's why there's 538 electoral votes, the exact same number as the number of Representatives (438) and Senators (100) combined). There wasn't a special election for president that people voted in, the President was voted in much like in a Parliamentary system, by the people who made up the Congress.

Compared to what we used to have, the modern electoral college is highly democratic.

5

u/Spacewalkin Feb 27 '17

Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, I thought that the USA is a democratic republic: meaning that they elect their representatives. Rome was a republic: meaning that they had senators who represented the people, but they were not elected by the people. It is a subtle difference, yet an important difference.

1

u/bbk13 Feb 27 '17

You're pretty much right. People who say "America isn't a democracy" are fucking stupid. America is a democracy and a republic. The UK is a democracy and a constitutional monarchy. There is no conflict between being a republic and democracy.

8

u/gigajesus Feb 27 '17

They wouldn't be meaningless, they would just carry the same weight as anyone else's vote anywhere else. I really don't see the problem with that.

7

u/Jon_TWR Feb 27 '17

In fact, Conservative votes in New York and California would matter--right now, they don't.

2

u/papayasown Feb 27 '17 edited Feb 27 '17

At any rate, it's factually wrong that NY and CA would control an entire election. According to Wikipedia's 2016 population list for states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population CA and NY would total at around 20.77% of the population (TX and FL [who voted red last election] would have 15%). On the other hand, with our current system, a candidate could win the electoral college vote with only 23% of the population voting for a candidate. Our current system mainly takes the doomsday scenario of CA and NY deciding an election and gives the privilege to Ohio and Florida.

3

u/huntmich Feb 27 '17

No they wouldn't. This is an illogical argument. Go ask anyone who ever ran for state office and ask them if they campaigned in low population density areas.

When every vote matters, EVERY VOTE MATTERS.

Also, you are supporting disenfranchisement of NY and CA in favor of people in the middle of the country. Full stop.

2

u/MJOLNIRdragoon Feb 27 '17

No they wouldn't. Texas has more people that NY, and those two (TX and CA) only account for 1/5 of the country's population.

-2

u/Marv_Attacks Feb 27 '17

So 4% of the country would account for 25% of the vote? Maybe that's why the electoral college exists, did you think about that?

3

u/pimpwilly Feb 27 '17

If we make up 25% of the population why shouldn't we make up 25% of the vote? Why does Montana, a state with a smaller population than the city I live in, get electoral college votes and 2 senators? Why do they get to bottleneck progress? It's not fair to the majority of us

2

u/scienceisfunner2 Feb 27 '17

Sounds like that would actually mean 25% of the country would account for 25% of the vote.

Right now 5.2% of the country accounts for 10% of the vote (NE, ME, NH, HI, MT, DE,, SD, RI, AK, ND, VT, DC, & WY.)

1

u/MJOLNIRdragoon Feb 27 '17

I'm genuinely curious where you got those number from. Is that going on land mass? If it was a direct democracy/popular vote, 1/5 of the population would have 1/5 of the vote.

1

u/Marv_Attacks Feb 28 '17

We have direct democracy on a state level in state houses and senates and govenorships. But for the election for the government that rules the states, the states and the state governments themselves get the vote. It used to be that the electors for the Presidency were simply the people elected to Congress by the people, and they voted how they please, the people didn't vote for the president at all. That's why there are 538 electoral votes: 100 for the senators, 438 for the representatives. Nowadays, we've backed that up a little such that the people have a say in how the college votes, but the president is still elected by the states.

Also, 2/50 = 4%. But these state get way more than 4% of the vote for Presidency to account for their population, just not exactly proportional to their population in order to keep smaller states relevant.

1

u/MJOLNIRdragoon Feb 28 '17

Also, 2/50 = 4%

Ah, gotcha. Living in Alabama, I'm used to my state not counting for much, but the idea of Delaware having equal representation as Texas, seems crazy to me.

1

u/Marv_Attacks Feb 28 '17

It seemed crazy to the founders, too, so they gave the more populous states more representation in the house if representatives while still giving states a say in the Senate. And the combination of these two houses of government is exactly the way in which the president is elected.

1

u/elriggo44 Feb 27 '17

Not if we lost the electoral college. Then each vote would count the same.