nope, work online, it's 2019

They're just more densely populated.

Remember, cities are supported by those 'fly-over' states. Take away their voice, and you'll invite some serious conflict.

not to mention these states also grow their food

so... you might want to hear them out. just saying.

youve convinced me

but the current way that districts are made is corrupt and has to change

Sure, I can agree with that.

It's should be an impartial system - hard to create without an accurate census.

idk, i still have a problem with votes not being equal

thats like a huge thing to be american

your vote matters, just as much as everybody else's

so for example the united states is the largest producer of corn in the world. over 95% of the farms that grow the majority of the worlds corn are family owned farms in "flyover states"... we only export 13% of the corn we produce. meaning we use 87% of that corn for all kinds of things... from food to oils. Now if we have a system that disenfranchises those in these states and that passes laws that benefit mainly cities because the largest population centers determine the winner... well then these farmers will be disproportionally affected. Candidates would specifically cater to the places like NY. Pushing gun laws... hate speech laws and etc. and it wouldnt matter what these farmers have to say in the matter.

you are mistaking the purpose of the electoral college. as its specifically designed to give these areas a say that they otherwise wouldnt have in just a popular vote system

UnScottable's right. You may be frustrated with the Electoral system - but it gives you way more of a voice than a pure democracy.

kinda fucked to give more voting power to someone who lives in a certain place

Thats what a popular voting system would do.

the electoral college system actually aids in making votes a lot more equal by not giving all the power to large population centers

and this is important in a republic. a union of states.

well.. if you care about them staying unified that is. perhaps you dont.

... wait do you have a problem with democrats being the majority?

lol

how is this question relevant to the discussion

No. I believe the American people have the right to vote for their candidate of their choice.

ok, im high so sorry if im asking you to repeat yourselves, but what exsactly is wrong with a popular vote?

whether or not I have an issue with democrats personally. has no impact on how a republic of vastly different states working together should operate

Popular vote gives all power to cities and no voice to other states.

You don't like the idea of giving voting power to people in a certain place.

popular vote gives power to the people..

That's what a popular vote would accomplish.

It would give all the power to a handful of cities.

this guy is literally braindead

<:npc:502497359419408384>

Nah man, he's just baked

It's all good

bruh i get baked all the time and dont just repeat the same phrase over and over

Popular vote = All voting power to cities, not everyone is heard. Electoral vote = All states have a say in who's elected.

how does it give power to cities? im confused... what does a geographical location have to do with their vote?

are you complaining that there are more democrats thean republicans?

Cities are more populated, candidates would only have to appeal to cities.

The ratio of Dems to Republicans doesn't matter here.