[zaarn]

> and the President is elected by the electoral college, limiting the ability of large population centers to overwhelm the rest of the country

Instead a mere 30% of the US can vote on who is president and the rest doesn't get a say. [The electoral system for voting the president is so weighed that if you were to win the right states, getting about ~30% votes would be sufficient to become president].

The US voting system is broken at best and does not achieve what you think it does.

[explainplease]

> Instead a mere 30% of the US can vote on who is president and the rest doesn't get a say. [The electoral system for voting the president is so weighed that if you were to win the right states, getting about ~30% votes would be sufficient to become president].

Has that ever happened?

In contrast, with a pure popular vote count, a few metropolitan areas could outvote the entire rest of the country. Would it be fair for NYC and LA to decide against the wishes of the rest of the nation? What do you think about this?

> The US voting system is broken at best and does not achieve what you think it does.

I said:

> limiting the ability of large population centers to overwhelm the rest of the country

So what is it that you think that I think it achieves which it actually does not? I feel like you're jumping to conclusions about what I think.

[zaarn]

A few times, even in the last election, the popular vote did not match the election outcome.

>In contrast, with a pure popular vote count, a few metropolitan areas could outvote the entire rest of the country. Would it be fair for NYC and LA to decide against the wishes of the rest of the nation? What do you think about this?

I think that's totally fair, the federal government should be mainly concerned about issues both affecting those in and outside the city.

>So what is it that you think that I think it achieves which it actually does not? I feel like you're jumping to conclusions about what I think.

No but I doubt that "limiting the ability of large population centers to overwhelm the rest of the country" is something worthwhile to worry about at federal levels in a federated state.

[explainplease]

> A few times, even in the last election, the popular vote did not match the election outcome.

That is not in dispute here. Why are you repeating that?

> I think that's totally fair, the federal government should be mainly concerned about issues both affecting those in and outside the city.

I don't understand how what you said makes sense as a response to my question. Why do you think it would be acceptable for large population centers to overrule the rest of the nation's sparser populations? To put it another way, why would it be acceptable for cities to overrule people who live very far away from them and whose concerns are very different?

> No but I doubt that "limiting the ability of large population centers to overwhelm the rest of the country" is something worthwhile to worry about at federal levels in a federated state.

Are you actually reading what I wrote? I asked:

> what is it that you think that I think it achieves which it actually does not?

And you answered:

> No

??? I asked "what?", not a yes-or-no question.

Then you said:

> I doubt that "limiting the ability of large population centers to overwhelm the rest of the country" is something worthwhile to worry about at federal levels in a federated state.

Are you being serious? That is one of the biggest concerns in a country that spans an entire continent with most of the population on opposite coasts and a significant cultural divide between urban coastal populations and less urban, landlocked populations in the center.

Besides that, even at the nation's founding, when it was concentrated on one coastline, the entire point of federalism was to prevent one population, one state, from overwhelming the rest.

Are you trolling? Or are you actually speaking out of so much ignorance?