I explained why it’s better. It provides a more equal footing for the states. The popular vote shouldn’t be used as it’s a stupid idea. It’s against the structure of our country. We are a republic. We are not a democracy. The founding fathers hated democracy. They knew we needed rails to keep the system working.
glimse@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Nowhere did you explain why it’s better and now you’re continuing to dance around the point.
Quit the bullshit and answer this concisely:
Why is a system where citizens in a few states to have disproportional power better than one where individuals are equal?
And don’t just vaguely gesture at the country again. Worse systems have lasted way longer so “see? It clearly works!” is not a valid argument.
wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 1 month ago
I explained why it’s better. Stability. Not sure why that answers seems to confuse you. It’s the stated reason for the system. A popular vote would destroy the country within a few elections. No thank you.
glimse@lemmy.world 1 month ago
“My anti-tiger rock works because I haven’t been attacked by a tiger so it clearly provides stability. If I didn’t have my anti-tiger rock, I would be killed by a tiger within a few years. No thank you.”
You don’t have any reasons why it’s better, I guess. Surprising :)
wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 1 month ago
The burden isn’t on me. You are suggesting a constitutional change. The burden is on you as to why it’s a good idea. You would need an amendment, and 3/4 of the states must agree. That isn’t happening as logical people know why we have the current system in place and why it isn’t changing.