• Zorg@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 day ago

    Isn’t the House and the Senate already skewed in rural areas favor? Do urban voters really need to be kneecapped all across government?

    • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      That’s the whole point of the House-Senate split- that the more populous urban areas get more representation in the House, but proportionately less in the Senate.

      That said- gerrymandering has fucked that up hardcore. The solution though is to stop gerrymandering, not to give urban areas universal control over the Presidency.

      If you make the Presidency a popular vote only, then candidates will campaign in every major city and won’t give a fuck what rural areas want.

      • Burninator05@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        12 hours ago

        If you make the Presidency a popular vote only, then candidates will campaign in every major city and won’t give a fuck what rural areas want.

        You may not be wrong but with the current system candidates pretty much only campaign in swing states. If you’re in a reliably red or blue state you likely arent getting a visit from a candidate.

    • infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      The senate sure is. The house get reapportioned after every census to stay more or less proportional to population differences.