• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -85 months ago

    The state of Wyoming has 2 US Federal Senators, for 576,000 citizens. The state of California has 2 US Federal Senators, for 39,000,000 citizens.

    We already have systems that change voting power of an individual based on arbitrary things.

    Why is this one worse?

    • FuglyDuck
      link
      English
      145 months ago

      Are you really arguing that because we have an unequal voting system, we should make it more unequal?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -75 months ago

        I’m saying that it’s already unequal, and nobody is planning on changing that.

        So why shit on other ideas like you aren’t already doing that.

        • FuglyDuck
          link
          English
          8
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Because the idea being shit on is awful and would make the problem objectively worse.

          You’re actively arguing to disenfranchise who-the-fuck-knows how many Americans based solely on the fact that they choose to not have kids. And your argument is “parents are special” which is bullshit and then “but it already sucks”.

          Yes. So why make it worse? Parents aren’t special or better. Many parents are too stupid to use birth control and wind up with “Ooops babies”. There is no objective moral superiority to being a parent, nor any objective insight or wisdom that non parents lack.

          So your justification is patently absurd. And you come back with “but why not?”- because it would make things worse.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          45 months ago

          Because your ideas are horrible. You’re not just building a bad system hundreds of years ago that’s over time sorted into a partisan warp on policy that we can’t easily get rid of, you’re proposing, in the modern age, selecting for the type of person you want to influence the government. That’s very much worse.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -35 months ago

            Why? We select the type of person we want to influence the government all the time, they’re called party conventions. The parties get together and figure out what their platform will be, and only the people who are in that party get to vote, and the people with money get to influence the result.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                05 months ago

                The world must be nice when everything is so black and white.

                Ideas can have some merit and still not be a good idea, maybe you should go back and read my very first comment if you’re unsure as to whether or not I’m arguing for or against this policy. I said it right there.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              25 months ago

              This is entirely nonsense. A delegate is not a type of person, nor is a voluntary and open party member, and political corruption is not codified electoral preference towards a better class of citizen. You’ve started this whole storm of comment arguing an immoral and poorly thought through philosophy of ‘parents are just better political deciders’ and with every whatabout and excuse for discriminatory systems have demonstrated conclusively that no, you are not.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            05 months ago

            So my idea is bad (it’s not my idea)

            But, you’re okay with the existing bad idea(s)

            Hell, the US even allows effectively unlimited money in politics if we want to get into bad ideas that hurt democracy that we already have.

            Where’s your campaign to overturn those?