• FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    5 months ago

    Are you really arguing that because we have an unequal voting system, we should make it more unequal?

    • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      5 months ago

      I’m saying that it’s already unequal, and nobody is planning on changing that.

      So why shit on other ideas like you aren’t already doing that.

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Because the idea being shit on is awful and would make the problem objectively worse.

        You’re actively arguing to disenfranchise who-the-fuck-knows how many Americans based solely on the fact that they choose to not have kids. And your argument is “parents are special” which is bullshit and then “but it already sucks”.

        Yes. So why make it worse? Parents aren’t special or better. Many parents are too stupid to use birth control and wind up with “Ooops babies”. There is no objective moral superiority to being a parent, nor any objective insight or wisdom that non parents lack.

        So your justification is patently absurd. And you come back with “but why not?”- because it would make things worse.

      • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        Because your ideas are horrible. You’re not just building a bad system hundreds of years ago that’s over time sorted into a partisan warp on policy that we can’t easily get rid of, you’re proposing, in the modern age, selecting for the type of person you want to influence the government. That’s very much worse.

        • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          5 months ago

          Why? We select the type of person we want to influence the government all the time, they’re called party conventions. The parties get together and figure out what their platform will be, and only the people who are in that party get to vote, and the people with money get to influence the result.

            • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              The world must be nice when everything is so black and white.

              Ideas can have some merit and still not be a good idea, maybe you should go back and read my very first comment if you’re unsure as to whether or not I’m arguing for or against this policy. I said it right there.

          • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            This is entirely nonsense. A delegate is not a type of person, nor is a voluntary and open party member, and political corruption is not codified electoral preference towards a better class of citizen. You’ve started this whole storm of comment arguing an immoral and poorly thought through philosophy of ‘parents are just better political deciders’ and with every whatabout and excuse for discriminatory systems have demonstrated conclusively that no, you are not.

        • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          So my idea is bad (it’s not my idea)

          But, you’re okay with the existing bad idea(s)

          Hell, the US even allows effectively unlimited money in politics if we want to get into bad ideas that hurt democracy that we already have.

          Where’s your campaign to overturn those?