[omegaworks]

>geographical balancing against population density was the Great Compromise

That's flowery language to disguise what was essentially a pact between wealthy industrialists and slavers.

It's long past time to dismantle that "compromise."

[srj]

From what I recall being taught it was to get the smaller states on board. These weren't necessarily slave states (e.g. Rhode Island).

It's been effective. If presidential elections were just driven by popular vote candidates would only campaign in the top population centers. Entire regions of the country would be ignored.

[astura]

>If presidential elections were just driven by popular vote candidates would only campaign in the top population centers. Entire regions of the country would be ignored.

This is definitely 100% false; this goes against the mathematical population distribution of the United States. The top 100 biggest cities in the United States combined only make up less than 20% of the population.

But even if it were true, it's not any different than the current status quo where candidates simply only campaign in "swing states," ignoring the vast majority of the rest of the Unites States. In fact, it would be better, because more Americans live in population centers than they do swing states.

https://youtu.be/7wC42HgLA4k?t=108

The other problems:

Many people who live in solidly blue or solidly red states don't even bother voting for president - they know their vote doesn't matter. I know this because I've literally heard people say it.

This it not even considering electoral college also entirely ignores 4 million Americans because they live in territories, not states.

[srj]

Late reply, but your math about the top population areas doesn't seem right. Are you looking at just city populations? I don't think that's an accurate picture. For example, the population of Boston is around 685,000 but you add in the surrounding suburbs and it's 4.8 million.

[odessacubbage]

if you think politics are bad now, just imagine what they'd be like if you only had to pander to the interests of a few coastal metros and maybe also chicago & dallas. the interests of rural voters would lose out every time. just look at france to see how this can play out. ime things like water rights and public land mean nothing to urbanites but they impact us immensely.

[astura]

The top 100 biggest cities in the United States combined only make up less than 20% of the population; you can't possibly win and election pandering to the interests of a few metro areas.