Not every vote in the USA is equal - it is all to do with the Electoral College.
I can understand the concern that the smaller states don’t want to be dominated by the larger states but the President rules for all so every vote should be equal and the President elected by a simple majority of electors surely?
BTW as an aside the Australian Senate is the “States House” where every state has the same number of Senators to prevent the bigger states dominating the smaller states but surely this is totally different to electing the leader of the country? (Tough luck if you live in a territory)
After creating an executive independent of Congress, delegates [to the Constitutional Convention] were not about to propose selecting the president through direct election, which would reflect the same popular opinion they saw lurking in legislatures. Instead, the convention delegates devised a plan by which a majority of members of the newly created electoral college would elect the president.
The electoral college system was created because the Founding Fathers feared direct democracy and the southern slaveholding interests thought this would help protect them from the demands of more populated northern states.
The electoral college system itself was actually invented and favored by the “Founding Fathers” due to their fears of an excess of democracy.
The article I quoted explains all that very thoroughly and the reasons why it tends to be biased toward the Republicans but they are now feeling vulnerable and there is a push toward a simple majority. I commend the article to you it is well worth reading.
Or rather the stance of the US in regard to the conflict in the middle east can’t be used as a determining factor when deciding between Trump or Harris. It’s necessary to look at other factors - economic policy, care of the American people, stance on other international issues, the drug epidemic, etc.
Thanks for sharing. These plans read like a Truss small government vision on steroids. No doubt accompanied by more tax breaks for the rich and for businesses. It won’t work and it will create massive problems for millions.
It is so funny when one thinks US policy is dependent on one person / party / group. We have a large Jewish-American population coupled with a government heavily influenced by Corporate interests, and war means big $$$$, and no matter who was / is President, the wishes of Corporate America will be served. Now you will say Trump ended the Afghanistan conflict, but upon closer inspection one sees his was a publicity stunt, aimed at giving him an accomplishment (his only) during his term and increasing his popularity / chances for reelection, which of course failed…
I seem to recall that Trump moved the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. This was viewed as very provocative, very pro-Israel and very unsympathetic to Palestinians. This would indicate that his support for the current Israeli actions would have been at least as strong as Biden’s.
…and Trump is an American businessman, controversy = conflict = American arms = $$$$ for American Corporations. See Vietnam, see Iraqi, both Corporate conflicts. Look how Corporate America has profited off the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
In just one year, the U.S. has spent at least $22.76 billion on military aid to Israel and
related U.S. operations in the region (through September 30).
2 This was true, even before
the U.S. expanded its presence in the region in late September/ early October 2024 in
events too recent to be included in this report.
Part II provides a snapshot of this military aid in historical context. Altogether, Israel
is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. aid since World War II. Even so, the amount of
military assistance approved during this past year – $17.9 billion – is substantially more
than in any other year since the U.S. began granting military aid, specifically, to Israel in
1959.
And Biden/Harris are part of it.So obviously not personally as monstrous as Trump but still responsible for the deaths of thousands.That’s the problem when you only have a choice of two.The bad or the less bad or not at all.
I understand its even more complicated within the swing states. When you get down to the county level there is often a whole other picture. Some counties solid in one support, other solid the other way. Then one or two are swing counties.
All this shows that the important event of voting in a president ends up being decided by a few thousand, maybe a few tens of thousands, of voters. What a dumb, antiquated, non-democratic system (just like the same in the UK). Millions of voters who effectively have no say. All the effort and focus on a handful of places. And all so very influenced by wealthy donors.
