(May 13, 2017 at 5:10 pm)Orochi Wrote:(May 13, 2017 at 4:37 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: The EC is an outdated relic from the days of horse and buggy. It hasn't headed off any disasters and unfairly tilts the value of a vote.
With the EC, the smaller the population of a state becomes, the more powerful it becomes.
There was a similar situation in Britain during the 18th century termed "rotten boroughs", wherein it was possible to seize disproportionate amounts of the vote using relatively few people.
Frankly, terming tyranny of the minority as "good" against the rule of the majority (democracy like we oh so claim to promote) is batshit insane.
As usual Brian, you miss the forest for the trees. The bulk of our population voted liberal in a recent national vote - were it a true plebiscite their will would've been carried out - but you throw away their views as "tyranny of the majority".
Well, I have news for you. Abraham Lincoln was elected with majority of the popular vote (split between four candidates), of which enough people in power actually believed he would do away with slavery to cause them to forment secession and ultimately the Confederacy, which purely states in its founding document to keep the Negro in perpetual enslavement.
The "tyranny of the majority" was seriously thought of as being "anti-Southern Slavery".
Want to tell me about the oh-so-threatening tyranny of the majority, as if the tyranny of the minority is any better?
Indeed which is why I asked for a definition from brian
Nope sorry, doesn't work like that.
Pony up with what you would replace it with, don't just simply bitch about it.
