• Neuromancer@lemm.eeM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    2 months ago

    I explained why it’s better. Stability. Not sure why that answers seems to confuse you. It’s the stated reason for the system. A popular vote would destroy the country within a few elections. No thank you.

    • glimse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      “My anti-tiger rock works because I haven’t been attacked by a tiger so it clearly provides stability. If I didn’t have my anti-tiger rock, I would be killed by a tiger within a few years. No thank you.”

      You don’t have any reasons why it’s better, I guess. Surprising :)

      • Neuromancer@lemm.eeM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        2 months ago

        The burden isn’t on me. You are suggesting a constitutional change. The burden is on you as to why it’s a good idea. You would need an amendment, and 3/4 of the states must agree. That isn’t happening as logical people know why we have the current system in place and why it isn’t changing.

        • glimse@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          Didn’t answer the question and rambled about something else instead. No wonder you like Trump

          • Neuromancer@lemm.eeM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            Who said I liked Trump ? You don’t seem to make sense. You would to change the constitution for an inferior system and don’t get the states would vote it down for that reason. Small states are not going to give up their votes.