And that gives you entitlement how?! You are ONE citizen, with ONE vote, you are no more or less “important” than anyone else. Money should not buy you influence, that it does buy influence is a bug, not a feature.
In before “it’s a feature, system is working as intended”: imho it’s a bug in the democracy subsystem that is intentionally caused and exploited by how the overarching system was implemented.
Democracy is not meant to work that way. The feature-contracts it implements is “one person, one vote” and “rule through a majority of votes”.
If you are able to break that contract because of how surrounding systems interact with the democracy subsystem, that means it’s a bug or vulnerability for democracy, used as an exploit by the overarching system implementing the democracy interface.
The feature-contracts it implements is … “rule through a majority of votes”.
This has never been true in the US at the federal level for the president, and arguably the house.
The president, by definition, is voted in via land. We can make all the arguments we want about the delegates voting based on the state’s vote, but we’ve seen just how tenuous that is, and that’s not even getting into the multiple instances of republicans winning despite having less votes.
The house is technically “rule through a majority of votes”, but they get elected to gerrymandered as fuck districts. They literally redistrict the land to pick their voters, which IMO, invalidates the idea that they “rule through a majority of votes”.
And that gives you entitlement how?! You are ONE citizen, with ONE vote, you are no more or less “important” than anyone else. Money should not buy you influence, that it does buy influence is a bug, not a feature.
In before “it’s a feature, system is working as intended”: imho it’s a bug in the democracy subsystem that is intentionally caused and exploited by how the overarching system was implemented.
Yes, I’m a software developer.
It is a feature though. Its not a big as it is working as intended.
If we really want to break it down…
Democracy is not meant to work that way. The feature-contracts it implements is “one person, one vote” and “rule through a majority of votes”.
If you are able to break that contract because of how surrounding systems interact with the democracy subsystem, that means it’s a bug or vulnerability for democracy, used as an exploit by the overarching system implementing the democracy interface.
This has never been true in the US at the federal level for the president, and arguably the house.
The president, by definition, is voted in via land. We can make all the arguments we want about the delegates voting based on the state’s vote, but we’ve seen just how tenuous that is, and that’s not even getting into the multiple instances of republicans winning despite having less votes.
The house is technically “rule through a majority of votes”, but they get elected to gerrymandered as fuck districts. They literally redistrict the land to pick their voters, which IMO, invalidates the idea that they “rule through a majority of votes”.