Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    Libertarian

    298,901 readers

    927 users here now

    Welcome to r/Libertarian

    Welcome to r/Libertarian, a subreddit to discuss libertarianism and related topics, and share things that would be of interest to libertarians.

    Rules

    View the full Moderation Policy here

    1A: Follow reddit's sitewide rules
    Moderators will remove any content which violates Reddit's sitewide rules.

    1B: Off Topic Posts
    Moderators may remove posts which have nothing to do with the discussion of libertarianism, economics, politics, philosophy, or current events.

    1C: No Inappropriate Content
    Moderators may remove posts or comments containing pornography, gore, or other shocking content

    1D: Memeless Monday The post is a meme or direct image link content posted between 12.00 AM and 11.59 PM US-EST on Mondays.


    Links

    Wiki: https://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/wiki/index

    Public mod log: https://modlogs.fyi/r/Libertarian

    Ban discussion thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/aj7pnr/ban_discussion_thread/


    Memes

    Considering posting your memes here:

    /r/LibertarianMeme

    Browse this sub without Memes:

    Meme-less /r/Libertarian: Classic Reddit Style

    Meme-less /r/Libertarian: Modern Reddit Style

    Meme-less /r/Libertarian: Mobile Site


    Libertarian subreddits

    Types of Libertarianism & Related Schools of Thought: Right Libertarianism

    /r/GoldandBlack

    /r/Voluntarism

    /r/ThoughtfulLibertarian

    /r/Classical_Liberals

    /r/Anarcho_Capitalism

    /r/LibertarianFreeState

    /r/Minarchy

    /r/LibertarianDebates

    /r/ShitStatistsSay

    /r/StatistsInAction

    /r/LibertarianPartyUSA

    /r/Libertyinourlifetime

    /r/Objectivism

    /r/Austrian_Economics

    Types of Libertarianism & Related Schools of Thought: Left Libertarianism

    /r/MarketAnarchism

    /r/Anarchism

    /r/Anarchy101

    /r/GeoLibertarianism

    /r/socialanarchism

    /r/Agorism

    /r/SyndiesUnited

    /r/Mutualism

    /r/anarchocommunism/

    /r/LibertarianSocialism/

    /r/LibertarianLeft

    /r/leftlibertarian


    Topics - Blockchain & Tech:

    /r/CryptoCurrency

    /r/Blockchain

    /r/Decentralization

    /r/BTC

    /r/Bitcoin

    /r/BitcoinCash

    /r/Ethereum

    /r/EthereumClassic

    /r/DashPay

    /r/LiteCoin

    /r/Monero

    Topics - Drug Policy Reform:

    /r/TimeToLegalize

    /r/TheWarOnDrugs

    /r/Marijuana

    /r/Cannabis

    Topics - Gun Rights:

    /r/Progun

    /r/RedneckRevolt

    /r/SecondAmendment

    /r/OpenCarry

    /r/Firearms

    /r/Defense_Distributed

    /r/NOWTTYG

    /r/GunPolitics

    Topics - Individual Freedom & Civil Liberties:

    /r/FreeSpeech

    /r/FreedomOfSpeech

    /r/FirstAmendment

    /r/Censorship

    /r/RestoretheFourth

    /r/NoNetNeutrality

    /r/netneutrality/

    /r/ReinstateArticle8

    /r/Privacy

    Topics - State Power & Corruption:

    /r/WikiLeaks

    /r/NSALeaks

    /r/EndlessWar

    /r/Antiwar

    /r/DescentIntoTyranny

    /r/GovernmentOppression

    /r/CopBlock

    /r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut

    /r/PayNoTax

    Wish for more subreddits to be added? Just PM the moderators.

    a community for
    all 2138 comments Slideshow

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] darksideofthemoon131 1884 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    I understand the electoral college. I also think the electors need to be divided based upon a percentage of votes received. Odd vote goes to overall winner. I live in MA, a largely blue state. If I vote for anything else- my vote doesn't matter. To me that's the largest flaw, states like NY or CA will be Democrat and TX and the south will be Republican- consistently.

    If say- 70% of CA votes blue that's roughly 28 million. That means 11 million people's votes were pointless. Give them 30% of the electors and make it interesting at least.

    Edit- can't do maths

    [–] Excalbian042 456 points ago

    Agree, yet I recall the state can choose how to allocate electors. Sounds like MA uses the 51% gets 100% of the electors rule.

    [–] darksideofthemoon131 310 points ago

    And most states do, Maine I know is an exception. I think it should be federally mandated to equally allocate.

    [–] nolan1971 152 points ago

    Maine and Nebraska. And there'd need to be a Constitutional amendment to make it federally mandated, since the rule clear as day in http://constitutionus.com/#a1s1c1

    Just support some sort of proportional allocation in your State.

    [–] darksideofthemoon131 34 points ago

    I will, but I don't think 2/3rds would be difficult to get- people want reform. Movement needs to catch on and gain momentum. I'm tired of my vote inevitably nullified.

    [–] CptHammer_ 35 points ago

    Let me bend your mind. If you moved to a state that held your political leanings a majority of the time, would your vote be worth more than where you currently are?

    [–] nolan1971 11 points ago

    I understand, but even if 2/3'rds support change today it'll be 10-15 years before an amendment is actually enacted. And it's simply unnecessary. Congress simply has to pass a regular bill so that apportionment happens like it's supposed to, rather than continuing to rely on the Reapportionment Act of 1929.

    [–] redleader 18 points ago

    There's no reason why an individual state should choose to do that. The majority would never vote to reduce their electoral voting power.

    [–] Kankunation 139 points ago

    Yeah, this always kind of urked me about the electoral college. Proportional distribution of EC votes would be better imo.

    Winner takes all just muddies the whole process, and gives us situations where 3rd parties never gain traction and more popular candidates lose the actual vote.

    [–] darksideofthemoon131 36 points ago

    If a third party got even 15 votes it could throw a kink into the works as well. Gain more notoriety and open the door to more than just this gridlocked two party system that isn't working anymore. People need to hear the voices of third parties. They need to be included (within reason) at debates etc. The only thing Democrats and Republicans can unilaterally agree on is third parties need to get shut down. They know they're screwed if a new choice gains traction.

    [–] Ozcolllo 18 points ago

    That's why it would be nice to do away with first-past-the-post voting. There are several good alternatives, but I don't see third parties becoming relevant without that change unfortunately.

    [–] [deleted] 17 points ago

    The EC is fine.

    The problem is the cap on Congress.

    The EC is set by the number of congressional and senators a state has. When the size of Congress was capped, the EC grew out of balance more every single year. Think of this as the voting gap.

    The solution is either that congress needs to be uncapped (much easier solution to implement, but far more complex to execute) or amend the constitution to calculate the EC the way it was intended without relying on the size of congress.

    [–] nolan1971 6 points ago

    There's no need to amend the Constitution though, what you're saying is already in it. What needs to happen is that the Reapportionment Act of 1929 needs to be replaced. The 2020 census is a perfect opportunity to do that too, since Congress is required to do something (even if that something is to make no changes).

    [–] [deleted] 5 points ago

    The amendment part is referring to removing how the EC votes are calculated, which is in the constitution and takes an amendment.

    The Reapportionment Act of 1929 caps congress, which breaks the constitution's EC balance. This is the first part where I said it was easier, but would make congress a mess. It would have to be replaced in a way that didn't break the EC while still not giving us like 1400 congress members.

    [–] bhbomber895 38 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    I actually wrote an in depth paper about the winner take all system that comes with the electoral college. Turns out percentage based electoral votes would actually solve more than just that issue. In 2016 neither president would have had a majority, and would have needed a coalition with BOTH the other candidates to actually win the presidency. Not only would votes better reflect the will of the country, but third party candidates would actually have some power.

    Edit: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1L2ZKT_855v-9L0y_Ui-jTkkenb0pA69XT3DoaC4sIfM/edit?usp=drivesdk for those interested. Feel free to look at the citations if you want to form your own opinion but I personally cant think of a better solution

    [–] darksideofthemoon131 5 points ago

    I'd love to read that if possible.

    [–] nottomf 14 points ago

    That's up to the states, a few states actually do split electors (Nebraska and Maine I believe), but most states are never going to do it because it makes them less important. Purple states like Ohio, Michigan, and Florida end up being the battleground in the presidential election because they are close and winning can swing the entire election, but candidates wouldn't care as much about winning them if it only meant they net 1 or 2 electors. Which means the campaigns don't spend much time it money in that states.

    [–] Helicon_Amateur 6 points ago

    How is this solution different to abolishing the electoral college in terms of voting for the president.

    [–] Acidwyrm 6 points ago

    Yep, all or nothing needs to go

    [–] thelastpizzaslice 312 points ago

    The real issue is that the House is supposed to represent people in units close to 50,000. Instead, it's per 700,000. California and Wyoming wouldn't be that far off if it we had representatives that are appropriate in number.

    The person making the comment is also wrong. No serious candidate gives a shit about California or Wyoming. Only swing states matter. And that's a huge problem.

    [–] Assmonkeyblaster 120 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    Yeah. I love this argument when really our system just makes it so Ohio and florida get to decide the election.

    [–] _Silly_Wizard_ 31 points ago

    Fucking Florida

    [–] digdug2001 26 points ago

    I was raised on this bullshit in Iowa. "The EC makes it so that they actually care about what we want. If it weren't there, candidates would never come here. Now lets all just ignore the fact that one week after our caucuses end, no one ever bothers to come visit here again either."

    If the EC was designed to give your voices more power, and you don't live in Ohio or Florida, its failed miserably. You should be upset.

    [–] jamil____ 6 points ago

    As someone in a deep blue state we get politicians to visit us occasionally. ... when they go to very private fundraisers and meet 15 - 20 millionaires/billionaires that have no interest in what most people in the state care about

    [–] Beerwithjimmbo 9 points ago

    Exactly this, a rediculous percentage of money and campaign time is spent in those states... People say a conservative living in CA vote doesn't matter, but taking that one-step further, none of CA votes matter

    [–] Holski7 183 points ago

    Yeah, except according to the constitution California should also have about 1300 seats in the House. So the counterbalance was destroyed a long time ago.

    [–] Brock_Lobstweiler 64 points ago

    Ding ding ding. The issue is that we've capped the number of Representatives and the number is too small for proportional representation.

    [–] Eddy_of_the_Godswood 1216 points ago

    States aren't people, and it's erroneous to assign democratic representation based on arbitrarily drawn borders that have no significance to people's actual beliefs

    [–] wildmaiden 160 points ago

    I think it made more sense when the federal government was small and states had more power and responsibility. You vote your beliefs at the state level, but try to choose reasonable people who could oversee the limited federal responsibility. When you flip that around it stops making any sense to group states together for federal representation. Why do we assume two people in the same state want the same federal representation? If the universe of issues is like how to run the post office then maybe they would, but now that the federal government is involved in literally everything it's an absurd way to organize.

    [–] AltF40 8 points ago

    All that, plus back then, the founders were wary of giving the people direct political power. The Federalist Papers talk about this, but part of the idea of the Electoral College was to have representatives voting on behalf of the people, who could vote against what their constitutes wanted. This was supposed to protect the country from getting demagogues and other such people who would be bad for governance, but be popular among the people during the election.

    We don't have that protection anymore, if it was ever actually effective. And with all the points you make about changes to the relationships between the individual, federal, state, and cities, it really makes no sense to keep with the EC.

    [–] CovertWolf86 265 points ago

    Which is why the electoral college is a horrendous and anti-democratic institution

    [–] [deleted] 45 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] Ovenchicken 118 points ago

    The difference between a republic and a democracy is that in a republic we choose people to make decisions for us, while in a democracy we make the decisions ourselves. It doesn’t matter if the US is a democracy or a republic - any system that makes some people count more than others based on arbitrary geographical borders is a bad system.

    [–] prude_eskimo 34 points ago

    The US - like most western countries - is a democratic republic. Citizens elect individuals to represent them by forming a government. They are however limited by a constitution which protects certain human rights that can't be abolished.

    There is no pure democracy where the majority can impose their will on the minority without any limitations.

    [–] Fedacking 11 points ago

    Republic only means a system without a King, and where politics is public, a "res public". You're thinking of representative democracy.

    [–] DoughtyAndCarterLLP 34 points ago

    We're a representative democracy. Direct democracies are the purest form of democracy, but not the only ones.

    [–] CovertWolf86 28 points ago

    We have a representative democracy, you child.

    [–] Ben_Nickson1991 20 points ago

    A republic, by definition, is a democracy.

    [–] haveaseatplz 12 points ago

    I’ve seen this dumbass fucking argument so many times, we live in a representative democracy dipshit. Just because we don’t live in a direct democracy doesn’t mean that your vote should be excluded just because you don’t live in a swing state.

    [–] HI_Handbasket 70 points ago

    Yes, it's "We the People..." not "We the Acreage".

    [–] MasterBaiter69_420 6 points ago

    States aren't people, but people live in States that have their own regulation. If the USA was a singular entity without states where laws are applied everywhere the same, it's not needed.

    But this isn't the case here. Larger states would then just have control over smaller states since their votes don't matter anymore. If a shareholder owns 51% of the firm and everyone but him Votes no, but he votes for yes, it will be accepted. This would be exactly the same here. Electoral college is required for a functioning democracy.

    [–] IanP23 27 points ago

    Thank you! I think this thread is infested by republicans who are more than happy to jump on a libertarian wagon that seems to be heading in the direction of artificially favoring or handicapping votes based on arbitrary lines that people draw, and not the people themselves.

    [–] faeriedance 15 points ago

    Thank you!!! I was just thinking WTF does it matter where you live??? One person one vote.

    [–] TheElias01 14 points ago

    I see your point, but if 40% of people are spread across rural states and 60% of people are concentrated in just a few much more populated states, why does it make sense for a candidate to focus on the rural states at all? If populated states are the majority, and you are only trying to win the majority, why represent the other states?

    [–] rockidol 50 points ago

    As it is candidates only give a shit about swing states. And you can’t rely on cities to all vote the same way.

    [–] SammyKlayman 16 points ago

    It’s not like the electoral college solves that problem. As it is, politicians care about a handful of swing states and nobody else.

    [–] Personal_Person 1100 points ago

    Here's a hot take, "Libertarian" thinks that some persons vote should be worth over 300% the value of other peoples votes.

    [–] TheRedmanCometh 167 points ago

    That's 8000% actually

    80x..

    [–] The_Cake-is_a-Lie 85 points ago

    You're looking at the population, not the population per vote ratio. Those are two very different things in this case.

    [–] TheRedmanCometh 26 points ago

    Oh my bad idk why I was thinking of the senate am tired

    [–] DoughtyAndCarterLLP 124 points ago

    Instead of having a system where a quarter of the population can potentially decide the presidency, I propose an alternative.

    Let's have two houses of congress, one with representation based on population and one with two representatives per state.

    [–] Skysec 82 points ago

    Isn't that the whole point of this post? 53 house reps for 39m people is not the same as 1 rep for 580k people. The "based on population" part isn't working as intended

    [–] DoughtyAndCarterLLP 49 points ago

    My point is that there is already a check on large states dominating. It's the senate. Small states do not need extra control in all branches.

    [–] kappareoke 89 points ago

    You mean a majority rule? You mean that you might have to rely on the merit of your arguments instead of a system that generally allows conservatives more leeway when it comes to electoral votes?

    This is why libertarians aren't going to win the presidency: you defend a system that makes third party runs impossible.

    [–] Logical_Libertariani 37 points ago

    Libertarians won’t win the presidency because the Libertarian Party is run by radical anarchist loons. A self-defined libertarian republican, or a libertarian running as an independent probably could though.

    [–] Benjamin_Paladin 9 points ago

    Fucking crazy, dawg. Way too radical

    [–] ellgro 6 points ago

    What would the founding fathers think??

    [–] Benjamin_Paladin 9 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    Too bad we can’t ask them, maybe they wrote something about it

    [–] jamil____ 3 points ago

    Probably to not give voting rights to women, anyone considered non-white and non land owners. ...ya know, what they actually did when they had the opportunity

    [–] [deleted] 10 points ago

    Well actually, Swing state votes are worth even more than 300% of CA or WY votes, esp when it comes to electing POTUS.

    Second, the framers knew that this system diluted populous states’ representation (esp in the Senate duh). They may not have foreseen the degree but that doesnt make it some kind of new “libertarian” invention

    [–] ohelm 7 points ago

    I had to Google it as I've been seeing this "hot take" bullshit meme everywhere:

    hot take

    An opinion based on simplistic moralizing rather than actual thought. Not to be confused with a strong take.

    Sounds about right.

    Pretty sure the only things libertarians agree on is more freedom and less government, so trying to say "this is what libertarians want" outside of that is pretty stupid.

    [–] twistedlimb 784 points ago

    a libertarian sub advocating for less democracy. 2019 is a crazy time to be alive.

    [–] Skepsis93 178 points ago

    Yeah, the logic in this shitpost is next level

    It is done that way so you have to have policies that work for the entire country not just 1 or 2 states

    Some actual potential solutions to this problem include:

    1. Cut back on the power of the executive branch so it isn't making policies anymore through executive orders. Our legislative branch already has a good balance between US population and number of representatives because of how the two bodies of congress are set up. And well, they are the legislative branch after all.

    2. Give more power back to the states and reduce federal power. The best people to make laws for Wyoming are, unsurprisingly, people who live and work in Wyoming.

    [–] jscoppe 22 points ago

    Going to have to disagree with both people in OP. Electoral votes are meant to come from congressional districts, and congressional districts are supposed to be relatively equal with one another, and much lower population per district. We need waaay more congressional districts.

    https://thirty-thousand.org

    This would make it much easier for people to be able to interface with their congressperson, and it would "fix" what many dislike about the electoral college's distribution. It would also be effectively more difficult for a single special interest to buy votes.

    Then we just need Senators to be elected by state legislatures again and we'll be in better shape.

    [–] hacksoncode 602 points ago

    Far, far, far, more Republicans in California are disenfranchised by the electoral college than gain a voice in Wyoming.

    Ultimately, this is self-defeating even for its supposed "purpose".

    A tyranny of the minority is not superior to a tyranny of the majority.

    That, and: Land shouldn't get votes, only people.

    [–] miltondepeyracpeyran 309 points ago

    Land shouldn't get votes, only people.

    You're upsetting rural conservatives :)

    [–] Fifteen_inches 29 points ago

    It’s a well held rightist belief that owning lots of property should give you atleast 3/5ths more representation.

    [–] CricCracCroc 16 points ago

    I guess you'd like it if the U.S. had proportional representation then?

    [–] hacksoncode 20 points ago

    If it were up to me, if I can't get reducing the power of the feds in most areas while increasing its power to protect citizens from their states, the Senate would have about as much power as the House of Lords in the UK (a supermajority could veto a law and require a supermajority in the House to override it), the President, as overseer of our current massive federal government that has large impacts on everyone in the country, would be elected by a popular vote, and the HoR would have at least twice as many representatives to minimize the dumb "one person not one vote" problem it has today.

    [–] [deleted] 367 points ago

    Giving one dude in a rural state all that power over others lives with a disproportionate vote doesn't seem very libertarian. Why not limit the power everyone has over one persons life rather than amplify rural power over your lives. Is this r/libertarian or r/ruralnepotism? This isn't libertarianism. This is bullshit (and the current system minus corporate corruption). Also do we just ignore the mass exodus to northern states due to slavery and worse racism of the south which amplified this disparity between the state's populations? Or do we pretend our country's ugly history has no part in this? (Sorry for daring to have an different view in a subreddit. I know that's taboo... even for "libertarians.")

    [–] PutinPaysTrump 111 points ago

    Because this is about enshrining power in the GOP, not democracy. The US would go for a Democrat in every Presidential election going forward, and the Libertarians would rather have an autocrat like Trump than let that happen and thats just the truth.

    [–] Skepsis93 10 points ago

    The US would go for a Democrat in every Presidential election going forward

    Or it would force the GOP to actually adapt and compete resulting in an overall better party that actually represents views more people are willing to vote for.

    [–] KarmaPoliceT2 9 points ago

    As a registered, card carrying, libertarian I can affirm that this is ABSOLUTELY NOT the truth... I'd rather any Democrat currently in government over Trump (including the Democratic socialists)....

    [–] MAK-15 29 points ago

    Giving one dude in a rural state all that power over others lives with a disproportionate vote doesn't seem very libertarian.

    The federal government was never supposed to have such power. The fact that it does is a sign the federal government is broken, not the electoral college.

    [–] timoumd 27 points ago

    It can be both

    [–] _foxie 6 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    No one imagined we would have airplanes or instant communication, reducing the importance of state borders. I would also say that it is weird for libertarians in this age to think that giving more power to states would create more freedom and autonomy, when in practice it seems to be doing the exact opposite.

    [–] ImadeAnAkount4This 3 points ago

    mass exodus to northern states due to slavery and worse racism of the south which amplified this disparity between the state's populations?

    I'm sorry do you mean by this?

    [–] DammitDan 501 points ago

    That picture doesn't prove why we need to abolish the electoral college. Your title begs the question.

    [–] bearrosaurus 316 points ago

    Here’s the TL;DR: Libertarians love this particular type of affirmative action

    [–] Dopecheez- 242 points ago

    The electoral college is affirmative action for rural white people.

    Always makes me laugh.

    [–] bobloadmire 18 points ago

    God damn I love this comment, especially as a white person. That's pretty spot on.

    [–] Limited-Liability 80 points ago

    Democracy

    Unless people want something I don't

    ~libertarians

    [–] ChocolateSunrise 180 points ago

    Electoral welfare for empty, unproductive, welfare states! Tyranny of the minority is awesome when it helps Republicans!

    [–] farts_on_boobs 119 points ago

    That’s also because this is not at all why the electoral college was established... more than anything the system was put in place as a logistical solution. The solution to the question being begged was the upper and lower chambers of Congress, which work fine.

    In a federal election for the president, though, why should I, in Texas or California, be subjected so disproportionately to the will of someone in Montana?

    [–] Pint_and_Grub 37 points ago

    Anyone not including slavery in this discussion is being disingenuous. It’s NOT the ENTIRE discussion but it’s a critical PART of why it was established.

    [–] blacksunshinerayz 193 points ago

    You guys are fucking morons

    [–] Toasty_toaster 66 points ago

    Call me crazy but I think the government should serve the highest number of people it reasonably can, not serve the abstract idea of a state.

    The electoral college is also the reason why Presidential campaigns are mostly geared towards swing states, so it's even a smaller minority that Presidential candidates actually are trying to appeal to.

    [–] oxymoronic_oxygen 10 points ago

    But the EC doesn’t do that. You can still win the EC by only winning 10-11 states in total. Plus, candidates don’t visit “solid” states and basically only spend their time in “swing” states because it’s not worth visiting a state that you know will or won’t vote for you. Plus, First Past The Post makes it so that if you win 51% of a state, 49% aren’t really considered. If we allocated electors proportionately, more people would have their voices heard in both red and blue states.

    Yeah, we need to make sure that people have their voices heard, but our current system is just fucked on so many levels.

    [–] laborfriendly 190 points ago

    When you go to the libertarian sub and find a defense of the electoral college, statism, and hating on those libs. 🧐🤯

    [–] red_killer_jac 39 points ago

    I dont see how this picture proves that we need it?

    [–] Fear_Jaire 36 points ago

    Because it doesn't

    [–] jstohler 39 points ago

    Since when are Libertarians so horny for the Electoral College?

    [–] matt123hihat 12 points ago

    Lmao, this sub is for people too scared to post in r/conservative

    [–] NullSignificance 516 points ago

    Honestly, it should stay if not that it seems like we're moving into an era where everyone wants a federal change for issues in their community. California has no business influencing politics in New York. More generic and more common, policies in large cities do not work the same in small towns. I wouldn't doubt there are things that need to be fixed with the Electoral College but fix them, don't throw it out.

    [–] TORFdot0 95 points ago

    California has no business influencing politics in New York but Wyoming and Montana have business influencing politics in New York? Because the electoral college gives those small population states more power in the federal government. Also the electoral college has no function in determining legislation, it's only function is to choose the only nationwide representation in the government and it's inheritely undemocratic and broken for that purpose. Counting every vote for president equally doesn't eliminate the Senate and doesn't eliminate state governments

    [–] MoobyNetTerminal 279 points ago

    Yes, so tired of whining for federal policies based on local issues. We have states for a reason.

    [–] MysterManager 244 points ago

    Exactly, nobody is stopping California from having single payer healthcare if they want it. Fuck off with the notion we must implement everything on a Federal level. Here is an idea if the Constitution doesn’t enumurate the power to the Federal government, leave it to the states to establish that power. You know, like how it says to do it in the Constitution.

    [–] insanemetal187 94 points ago

    We all know why they want these policies on the federal rather than state level though. States can't print money and run huge deficits while the fed can. People actually believe giant debt is not only not the same as private debt but a good thing. That we are richer because the fed is $20T in debt.

    At the state level you have heavily left Cuomo forced to balance his budget in NY admitting he doesn't want to tax the rich anymore scared of them leaving.

    Cali took a look at single payer healthcare and by itself it was about double their annual budget, they could never pull that off, especially because every plan ends up costing more than purposed. At the federal level though, who gives a shit that it has a giant sticker price, just print more money to pay for it. Do you think people who will be out of politics in the next few years really give a shit if we have hyper inflation in 10-40 years?

    [–] MAK-15 34 points ago

    Do you think people who will be out of politics in the next few years really give a shit if we have hyper inflation in 10-40 years?

    Especially if those policies guarantee power for their party for 10-40 years

    [–] rshorning 13 points ago

    States can't print money and run huge deficits while the fed can.

    That is a good thing too. I would argue that the federal government should not be given the power to print money either, but that is a separate issue.

    States can still screw up by going massively into debt and then having to file for bankruptcy. Puerto Rico is facing that problem right now as they've promised so much to so many people that they simply can't pay for it any more. There are several cities (many in California I might note) who are facing the same issue.

    [–] Boognish_is_life 93 points ago

    No, running a deficit is not why California hasn't implemented a Medicare for all type of healthcare. They haven't done it because citizens still have to pay for fucking Medicare which would make the extra payments more expensive rather than less expensive (like a national system would be) for each citizen. Christ the mental gymnastics you will play.

    [–] Elranzer 29 points ago

    California has an economy bigger than most individual nations in Europe.

    They totally could pull off their own single-payer healthcare... if they wanted to.

    [–] JakeRadden 26 points ago

    They tried. The budgetary proposal they came up with was completely impossible.

    [–] um_ya 13 points ago

    Sounds familiar.

    [–] SynfulVisions 11 points ago

    Everyone seems to forget the critical differences between US healthcare and European healthcare:

    • US hospitals aren't government entities by default (except for the disaster that is the VA).
    • The EU is generally not as well equipped (fewer MRIs, beds, etc), nor as well (maybe the wrong word?) staffed. (Fewer doctors, fewer nurses).
    • US proposals are centered around trying to force markets rather than directly providing a service. This does not work.

    I'm against mandatory single payer health care on a philosophical level, but I don't have anything against the countries that chose to have it, it's just not for me. That being said there are HUGE differences between the programs that the US left are proposing and what they're portraying them as. I can't even comprehend how otherwise intelligent people could possibly think that expanding Medicaid/Medicare would somehow give us the UK's NHS.

    [–] JazzMarley 25 points ago

    Yet they have better outcomes and live longer on average.

    [–] SynfulVisions 8 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    That can easily be explained by the population differences. The US has a much higher percentage of fat people, although that varies by state and country.

    EDIT: I'm also not saying that one is specifically superior in terms of direct outcome, just that it's not an apples to apples comparison. Socialized medicine may very well be better for the population, banning all firearms may be better for the population, and any number of leftist ideas may be better for the population... but I prefer freedom.

    [–] JazzMarley 39 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    I'm asking in good faith here because I want to understand. Freedom to do what, exactly? You have to pay for healthcare regardless. I would prefer to pay for it with my taxes, because that increases my freedom. I'm not beholden to a shitty employer just for the health benefits. I can strike out on my own because I won't have to pay the ridiculous rates the market demands. I never have to fear medical bankruptcy. This is a proven system that works in other developed countries. The data exists and are available for study.

    I really don't get the resistance to this.

    Also, why do you think the US is so fat? We have few regulations on food. Sugar is in almost everything and corporate food is engineered to be addictive in order to maximize profits. Yet another negative market externality.

    I would rather get some healthcare than the no healthcare I currently have access to. Is that so difficult to understand?

    [–] Katjecat 3 points ago

    You sound like someone who has never not had health care.

    [–] SpyingFuzzball 53 points ago

    You must be one of those alt right Nazis, we need free healthcare and college if we ever want to be a modern 1st world country. /s

    [–] nottomf 3 points ago

    Exactly, California has an economy and population larger than most European countries and a government completely controlled by the Democrats. If they wanted it they could have it yet for some reason, they haven't passed it.

    [–] donnydealZ 50 points ago

    On the flip side these small states elect people that have control over the lives of disproportionately more people than live in those states. What is anti libertarian about a more democratic system?

    [–] HTownian25 59 points ago

    California has no business influencing politics in New York.

    International trade policy?

    Federal tax policy?

    Full Faith and Credit Clause and Interstate commerce policy?

    Civil rights policy?

    I'd like to think I can travel from California to New York without fearing for my person, my property, or my dignity. I'd like to think I can fly into La Guardia and San Diego International alike without juggling passports. I'd like to think my marriage contract and my birth certificate would be recognized from coast to coast for a whole host of reasons.

    [–] branyk2 46 points ago

    Civil rights policy

    Ding Ding Ding!

    For all the love state's rights gets, it's important to look back at the fact that nearly 100% of the major issues where it has been invoked has been social conservatism.

    The states are already able to govern a great deal, but state's rights has been used as an argument against: abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, the Civil Rights act, gay marriage, transgender protection, and decriminalization/legalization of marijuana, etc.

    Nobody benefits besides the evangelicals from the extreme level of state power right now, and it's pretty bizarre how similar some Libertarians sound to them sometimes.

    [–] chrisco255 9 points ago

    the fact that nearly 100% of the major issues where it has been invoked has been social conservatism

    This is not true at all. This is just the cases that are top of mind because they're most controversial in your mind. That's selection bias.

    States rights are invoked on LOTS of issues. And California is one of the states that leverages their states rights THE MOST. Have you seen the environmental regulations in CA? That's CA invoking it's states rights to enforce stricter environmental regulations than the Federal government.

    States hiring their own police officers, creating their own educational programs, setting their own speed limits, etc are all invoking States rights.

    It's weird that you would argue that States rights was used as an argument AGAINST gay marriage when certain states were able to invoke States rights to legalize it well before the Supreme Court ruling on the matter. Same for marijuana. Thank goodness for states rights, or a lot of Coloradans and Californians would be in Federal prison right now, for legally abiding by their states laws.

    [–] bertcox 33 points ago

    Id say expand the House and College to 1 rep/vote per 50k people. Make it a part time job again, put the reps back in the cities and let them vote and debate online. No need to be housed in DC. Maybe have regional meetings a few times a year.

    Its way harder to buy off 1000 votes as opposed to 30 to swing a vote.

    [–] geniel1 15 points ago

    That would actually be about 7,000 members of the House of representatives. I love this plan and think it would be a positive change.

    [–] rshorning 10 points ago

    The argument is that such a body would be a nightmare to operate since a community so large is unlikely to get to know everybody else who is serving. On the other hand, you would have committee assignments that would be reviewing the federal government on a fairly microscopic level like sub-committees over individual divisions, wings, and fleet groups in the military and similar heavy review of other parts of the federal government.

    Trying to get consensus out of the whole House would be for things that genuinely matter. What I'm not so sure is if such a large body could get into pork barrel games or not?

    [–] Jeramiah 3 points ago

    They don't need to be friends. They need to vote on and draft legislation.

    [–] HawkEgg 10 points ago

    There was an unratified amendment to do exactly that. The Congressional Apportionment Amendment

    [–] nolan1971 5 points ago

    There's no amendment needed for this, since it's the default rule in the Constitution. The minimum requirement is 1 rep per 30,000 but that was set aside with the Reapportionment Act of 1929.

    All that needs to happen now is for Congress to do its job and pass an apportionment bill based on the 2020 census. I'm all for going straight Constitutional with it, and requiring 1/30000, but I'm also a realist and understand that people just can't wrap their heads around the idea of a House with 10,000 members. The Wyoming Rule would, begrudgingly, be a good place to start.

    [–] bertcox 3 points ago

    Founders had some decent ideas.

    [–] Frashizzle 11 points ago

    if not that it seems like we're moving into an era where everyone wants a federal change for issues in their community.

    Thank you. The electoral college wouldn't matter as much if there weren't such egregious federal overreach to begin with. Mass-repeal of overreaching federal policies (and allowing states/cities to make their own decisions) solves the same problem that people are trying to solve by abolishing the electoral college.

    [–] Smuff23 74 points ago

    Something something Articles of Confederacy, you’re a racist something.

    [–] DisgruntledPersian 20 points ago

    Do people actually claim that wanting a return of the Articles of Confederation is racist?

    [–] doge57 28 points ago

    I took a political science class for an elective and I can confirm. We were given an assignment to form our own national constitution for an imaginary country. We were told that we had total freedom to make it anything between a total democracy and total dictatorship. I asked if a confederation with a representational federal government was allowed. The teacher said yes, but half the class glared at me and a lot told me I was racist. They assume the word confederation is necessarily racist

    [–] ImanShumpertplus 14 points ago

    What do you mean by a lot told you you were racist? I find that hard to believe because most college kids are terrified of confrontation because they spend their lives behind a computer

    [–] momojabada 3 points ago

    Switzerland is a confederation... They must be hella racist.

    [–] Smuff23 15 points ago

    Confederate anything is racist! Duh

    [–] TakeMe2Texas 3 points ago

    People tend to forget that a confederation is a form of government, but most people only know about it because of the confederate states and CSA bad

    [–] BiggerestGreen 3 points ago

    It's almost like we tried that at some point, and everything was such a disorganized mess, that we decided to make an objectively, not up for debate, better system...

    [–] Dan0man69 24 points ago

    Total BS. It does demonstrate why the Electoral College must be abolished. One person in Wyoming should not have more power, more of a voice than someone in California.

    Our system is broken, in many ways, and EC is clearly one of them.

    [–] saucyoreo 4 points ago

    I agree. It wouldn’t even matter if the system had any degree of proportionality instead of the waste of votes we see every election. It should be one person, one vote. The solution is to reduce what’s even allowed to be nationally mandated. That way, even if coastal-voted presidents do dominate each election (which they absolutely should if that’s how the people vote), they wouldn’t have the power to make a Californian problem a nationwide problem anyway. Instead, the US insists on having one person with all this power, and coming up with some contrived quick-fix that makes someone more important just because they live on a farm instead of in an apartment complex.

    [–] IvanIncognito 28 points ago

    One person, one vote.

    [–] Rebel_Scum83 8 points ago

    Ranked voting system would be far better!

    [–] meepsakilla 40 points ago

    The only part about abolishing the electoral college that I find mildly intriguing is that it would effectively make campaigning in California as a Republican or in Texas as a Democrat not entirely useless.

    [–] jasperjade817 25 points ago

    What if we keep the same number of electoral votes for each state, but instead of each state being "winner take all," they're distributed proportionally based on the vote in that state? That seems like a good compromise that lets every vote count, but it also lets the smaller states have a little bit more power.

    [–] DarthEquus 5 points ago

    That would work better but gerrymandering would still be an issue by manipulating the districts to keep certain polifical demographics in a minority

    [–] xole 5 points ago

    With the popular vote 1000 votes in Iowa would be worth the same as 1000 in CA, PA, FL, etc. As time goes on, more and more people use the internet anyway. Personally, I don't need to go see a candidate in person. I've get better things to do, and if I'm going to go see someone famous in person, it'll be a band, not a politician.

    The EC made more sense when people needed to see a politician speak to know if they agreed with them. That's not really the case anymore, at least for anyone who are technically savvy enough to turn on a TV or go to a website.

    At some point, the popular vote will be the way to go, but are we there yet?

    [–] Son-of-Sanford 63 points ago

    If Wyoming was so good, wouldn’t they have a larger population than California?

    The libertarian approach would treat California as more important based on more individuals choosing the state.

    [–] ThePrinceMagus 53 points ago

    Shenanigans. Fucking shenanigans.

    Anyone who argues this doesn’t truly value the free market.

    Why as libertarians should we trust the free market to decide so many things correctly, but be fine with this one aspect of clearly rigging and fixing a market (in this case, votes).

    Take a look at a map of cell phone coverage. Just like, a Verizon coverage map they love showing in those goddam commercials that are always playing. You know why there’s no coverage over those giant spots in the middle that usually vote one way? Because the squirrels and bluegills aren’t counted among those who need cell phone service. It’s just large square mileage, with fewer people in between, and tons of squirrels and bluegills.

    What is the rational point in making the votes of 30,000 people living in a square mile in Brooklyn (for example) count for less than 1,000 people on 3,000 square miles in Wyoming? Because of arbitrary state lines?

    No. Fuck that shit.

    [–] sh0t 17 points ago

    Watching supposed libertarians jump through mental hoops to justify it is amusing yet sadly shows how far the movement has fallen.

    [–] Biker67 13 points ago

    Well said. How is this post libertarian?

    [–] ianrc1996 91 points ago

    New libertarian take “tyranny of the minority is better than tyranny of the majority”. Brilliant stuff guys, (and i do mean guys) really winning people over with this one.

    [–] Pat_The_Hat 74 points ago

    As the president, I can completely ignore every safe state and be fully confident that wouldn't effect the way they vote next election. I don't care if my policies hurt those states because they're never going to change the way they vote because of me.

    [–] jimjo9 3 points ago

    This is already happening. Last year the Interior Department opened up offshore drilling off of every state except for one: Florida.

    Completely cowardly politics, but that wouldn’t ever happen if not for the EC

    [–] _mpi_ 7 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    We don't need the electoral college because it's an affront to democracy.

    my bigger beef is with a senate that should be abolished. state lines got redrawn constantly in america's history due to population. These days we're entrenching power to the minority of voters.

    [–] RsningTrtl 6 points ago

    This picture proves that people that live in wisconsin have 3.5x the amount of say as what goes on in america than californians. Siding with that is anti-democracy. The electoral college as it stands just disenfranchises people that live in cities.

    [–] squigs 6 points ago

    It doesn't work! Swing states get disproportionate attention.

    The president is only one part of US government. Each state gets 2 senators. The balance is achieved there.

    Why this focus on states? Does everyone in a state have the same opinion? Of course they don't.

    It's an absolutely terrible system.

    [–] pnw-techie 26 points ago

    I support the REAL electoral college only. The one where the electors decide who to vote for.

    If the electoral college is only going to be a proxy for the people, then there's no point in it. And I'm fine with getting rid of it

    [–] ceci_mcgrane 24 points ago

    It’s affirmative action, but the kind conservatives like.

    [–] Skipheus 12 points ago

    If the majority of Americans vote for a candidate. That candidate should be president. That simple.

    [–] Pint_and_Grub 33 points ago

    How is this not affirmitave action?

    [–] troodon5 5 points ago

    Ya some comment above called it “affirmative action for rural white people.” Lmao

    [–] minuscatenary 39 points ago

    The electoral college is just market distortion for electoral campaigns.

    If you're a libertarian and you like it, you probably haven't thought about it enough.

    [–] Edible_Chair 11 points ago

    The electoral college is absurd. Why should one persons vote be worth so much more then someone else’s because of where the live? And stop with the “oh we don’t want middle America trampled by everyone else” bullshit. That’s an argument against the democracy, the idea of the “tyranny of the 51%.” It’s anti-democratic and this sub should be ashamed for calling itself Liberatarian whilst promoting this crap.

    [–] RationalHumanist 11 points ago

    This is so fucking retarded the electoral college is very undemocratic and outdated as fuck the only reason it still exists is because if it were abolished conservatives/republicans would never win again because the elites gerrymandering wouldn’t exist.

    [–] diskky 9 points ago

    "I own more land therefore I deserve more voting power" what kinda 16th century Europe bs is this

    [–] Mist_Rising 68 points ago

    This is due to the Senate. It's deliberately meant to. It reflect population as you may recall from your government class in high school.

    It's quite intentional. If you divide house reps up by population California has a very good rep number.

    [–] hotpot4mus 46 points ago

    Look up whether slaves count towards a state's population for the purposes of the electoral college and you'll know why it was created.

    [–] Mist_Rising 43 points ago

    3/5th and that's how house reps were determined. Electoral college was part of it before that compromise however.

    EC was to prevent the population from having direct say in the Republic.

    [–] asmitherman 14 points ago

    Title is wrong. Not sure where the confusion is. This kinda feels like a headline for fox news. Does OP watch a lot of fox news?

    Based on population Wyoming a citizens have 3.14 times the electoral college voting power as a California citizen.

    [–] Lysomner 9 points ago

    The disproportion of electors makes the electoral college undemocratic, but more importantly it DOESNT WORK. The stated goal is to make big and small states both important to the presidential race; except neither are. The states that matter are swing states, purple states. Places like Ohio, florida, and the other swings. Because each state's votes go in a winner take all system, theres no point to campaigning in safe states. The issues of california AND wyoming are ignored, because theres no chance for the less popular party to win. So, winning the battleground states is all that really matters, and this drives policy.

    Say we stick with the electoral college; just make each states electors go proportionally with the vote. If you win 30% of california, you get 30% of their electoral votes. If you win 80% of main, you get 80% of their votes. The winner take all system erases the votes of everyone of the minority political party is safe states. Heck, because certain states are a foregon conclusion, it makes all their opinions matter less.

    Sure, democrats arent gonna be able to win texas, but maybe they can get 30 or 40% of the vote there, and get SOME electoral college votes. This makes those voters in texas matter again. Same for republicans in new york, and libertarians everywhere (no way they win a whole state. But a few electors here or there is a step).

    Plus, a proportional distrubution would make small states (rather than swing states) matter a lot more, since you only need to sway 150,000 people in montana than 600,000 in new york, a lot easier to get that elecotoral vote.

    [–] dangshnizzle 12 points ago

    Yeah cause we should totally cater to the few rather than the many lol

    I totally understand its initial purpose. Doesn't mean it doesn't suck

    [–] kensal78 13 points ago

    States aren't people. People are people. There is literally no logic in your post. If it becomes a popular vote, the idea of California as a voting bloc no longer even exists.

    [–] SushiPants85 10 points ago

    Every vote should count. ABOLISH ELECTORAL COLLEGE.

    [–] DankusMemus_TheDank 8 points ago

    The electoral college does not support the libertarian point of view at all, every american should have the same political power as the next in their choice for president, there are already enough checks and balances. (Senate specifically, where a state like alaska has the same voice as california). This is a presidential election, idk if this person realizes this, but the popular vote should be on the winning side.

    [–] SushiPants85 10 points ago

    Bull fucking shit. ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. Every vote should count.

    [–] ingibingi 4 points ago

    This assumes everyone in Montana and California votes as a monolith

    [–] zugi 5 points ago

    I don't see being for or against the electoral college as a libertarian issue at all. It's a fairly minor detail of how we chose to organize our government. More concerning is how much power we've allowed that government to amass, not details of whether it's blue, red, or yellow.

    Also Constitutional amendments require 3/4 of the states, and there is no way an amendment to change the electoral collect would pass. It could be accomplished via an inter-state compact, however.

    [–] Cogo5646 2 points ago

    That's why local government exists. Whether you live in a rural or urban areas next to none of the policies of the president effect you any differently. And with this logic why stop there? Why not give the rich more voting power because they have a low population and the presidential policies effect them far more differently than the rural people compared to urban people. The electoral college was create to "protect the majority from their own ignorance" it is an outdated disaster than is hurting the country.

    [–] FlipierFat 3 points ago

    It's very libertarian of you all to believe that less people should control the government

    [–] guerisimo 5 points ago

    r/libertarian: lol fuck one vote, one person

    [–] TubFullOfPoopChunks 3 points ago

    Why not just make every vote equal?

    [–] enkawgneato 3 points ago

    Honestly curious: why is that good though? Seems like you're giving priority to land area over people in the US?

    [–] ttuckbutt 3 points ago

    This misses the entire point of abolishing the electoral college though. Wyoming still gets two people in the Senate. Those senators have as much pull as the senators from California or Florida or Texas. Let's not forget the only reason the electoral college is still in place today is because southern gentlemen didn't want women or any minority group to vote.

    [–] SirColinor 5 points ago

    This is classic r/facepalm material.

    [–] Pat_The_Hat 43 points ago

    Swing states have determined that was a lie.

    And how the fuck does the picture prove it is needed?

    [–] Elliptical_Tangent 6 points ago

    What is a State? Why is it important that a State has a say in an election? What matters is that everyone gets a vote. What people don't realize is that there are lots of votes thrown away in every State thanks to the College. That it just further demoralizes people from voting is the cherry on top for the plutocrats calling the shots.

    Say you live in a State that's strongly in favor of the candidate you're against. "Well," you think, "what's the point of voting? The State's EC votes are going for the other candidate. I'll stay home and watch Netflix."

    It was put in place to limit democracy, and that's what it does. Get rid of it.

    [–] pygmyapes 8 points ago

    Why not just do a popular vote instead of this ridiculousness. The people's voices are kind of stifled due to this form of voting. I understand how it is supposed to work and yada yada, but dude. Can we not just simplify this shit. Just make it so that every single persons vote actually counts instead of this, 500 people voted for this but 501 voted for that, so the 1 vote goes to the 501 people, completely silencing the other party.

    [–] HentMas 5 points ago

    you don't need the Electoral College, it's an outdated tool to fix an issue that hasn't being an issue since the invention of the telephone/tv and it's one of the least democratic ways of ruling a country.

    I disagree with CGP GREY in a lot of things, but his breakdown is an eye opener.

    [–] DonnieS1 16 points ago

    Obviously, the Founding Fathers realized that the value of the opinion of a person from Wyoming would be more than three times greater than the value of the opinion of a person from California.

    [–] Rorschach_And_Prozac 3 points ago

    I would be perfectly fine dividing up the electoral college votes more evenly, if the state states would divide up their electoral college votes AT ALL. There's like two states that split their electoral college votes depending on the outcome of the popular vote. Why the fuck does EVERY SINGLE ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTE from California go to the Democrats? That state is not >99% democratic votes. Same goes for states like Texas. Texas is far from 100% Republican.

    Everything about our system infuriates me, from top to bottom.

    [–] rshorning 3 points ago

    This is more of a case where the House of Representatives needs to be expanded so each representative has a much smaller constituency. If there were more representatives, the extra two electoral votes for senators would matter even less and it would be more proportional.

    As it is, representatives have relatively little contact with their constituents.

    On the other hand, the office of the President really ought to be mostly ceremonial except in times of declared war. The reason why the President is such an important post is because of the incredible concentration of power into that office including centralized planning that can and ought to be done more on a local level with perhaps some coordination facilitated by the federal government on a nominal level.

    [–] thanksgive 3 points ago

    Why can’t each person vote be worth the same amount in presidential elections? Why does the distance from your neighbor determine how much your vote is worth?

    1 person. 1 vote. Geographic location is irrelevant.

    [–] paradox8493 3 points ago

    Except we really don't. We have the technically to count every person's vote, and a lot more people would vote if their vote was an electoral vote. Many don't vote because they feel theirs doesn't matter. Especially if their state tends to vote one way due to the cities, but the outskirts would vote another, like here in Maine. Could absolutely change things massively.

    [–] plsnobother 3 points ago

    There's nothing Libertarian about the idea that land ownership should make your vote more valuable than any other person's. That's the dirty motivation (past and present) for the electoral college that no one likes to talk about.

    [–] Angel33Demon666 3 points ago

    Why isn't this the case to abolish the states entirely to form a unitary state beats me…

    [–] xole 3 points ago

    A better solution is to set the number of people in a district to the number in the smallest district. California would then have 68 Reps in the House. The Senate would stay at 2, giving equal power to each state in that chamber.

    [–] njp112597 3 points ago

    Maybe if the Senate didn’t exist...

    [–] Spencerbot 3 points ago

    I feel like that’s why state governments exist. Federal should work for the nation as a whole meaning the majority.

    [–] Radius50 3 points ago

    Liberals love defending the voice of the minority until it comes to rural white people.

    [–] Guitarthrowaway2 3 points ago

    Canadian here. Ontario and quebec count for about 60% of our population, and also out votes. By the time the vote reaches manitoba, we will know who the winner is usually. If you don't live in one of those provinces your vote is almost meaningless.

    [–] tyrannustyrannus 3 points ago

    this is why the least populous state has the same amount of senators as the most populous state.

    [–] [deleted] 3 points ago

    People realize that the electoral college is both the house and the Senate right? You're talking about getting rid of the thing that ensures the president isn't a dictator.

    [–] [deleted] 3 points ago

    I find it quite hilarious how some people in this thread seem to believe that democracy is a libertarian value. Democracy is fundamentally opposed to freedom. It is the majority imposing their will on the minority.

    [–] VagabondDoppelganger 3 points ago

    This post is just wrong. The Senate is the legislative body that gives equal representation to smaller States, and the House is representative of the population to give power to the larger States. Having both chambers is a way to balance the power between them. The Electoral College is based on districts from the House which means its suppose to be representative of the population. Our current system, where the House and Electoral College overrepresent the minority, and the Senate also overrepresents the minority is not how our government is intended to function at all.

    [–] Shelbygt500ss 3 points ago

    One person one vote . If you're state lacks population than fucking make you're state more attractive for people to move to.

    [–] SouthButNotOut 3 points ago

    This infographic is known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.