>“ In Japan, Rural Voters Count More Than Those in Big Cities. It Shows.”

Sounds familiar

The problem is that it violates constitutional law that requires equity of vote. The vote inequity is because of rural area population is declining and local politician don't want to take away their electoral district.

The stars at night are big and bright clapclapclap deep in the heart of Texas. Sounds familiar.

> Sounds familiar

Probably because it’s an effort at narrative building from the NY Times.

Which states matter in deciding the president? How many of those are there? Where are they? Genuine questions, i don't follow it closely at all beyond the news media chatter about the path to the Whitehouse and so on.

Agree the NYT is getting worse, more establishment Democrat driven now their supporters are who pays them. There is still enough institutional memory that through the naritive hit pieces there's frequently solid reporting of contradictory facts that totally undermine it in the same story.

It’s not so much which states matter. Larger states generally matter more in Presidential elections. Especially large purple states like PA.

The problem with Presidential elections is small rural states still have outsize influence via the combination of more EC votes than a population-based count AND winner-take-all elections (51% of the vote in. A state and you get 100% of that states electors) in most states.

Turn there’s the Senate. Because it’s not based on population, CA and TX have the same influence as SD and DE. Combine that with arcane super-majority rules and a defective filibuster and it’s a recipe for outright obstruction by the minority party.

I’ve seen good arguments that the Senate violates equal protection under the Constitution and should be reformed on that basis. Keep the Senate around with its 6 year and 2/2/2 staggered terms but give Texas and California more Senators than North and South Dakota.

Violates the constitution? I’m not a constitutional scholar, but that sounds like a ridiculous argument. Article 1, section 3: “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State…”

The 14th amendment introduces “equal protection,” speaks specifically about representation, and says nothing about changing the makeup of the senate.

(Edit: And even if it did, the 17th amendment restates that each state gets two senators, and would supersede the 14th.)

I am Dutch / European and do not understand why change/amendments of the constitution is not generally acceptable/attractive by the US population.

Surely societal change must and does change the efficacy and context of law over time?

They are acceptable (we have 27), the problem is the high bar to enacting one. With our hyper-partisan two-party system, it’s really hard to get anything done. Even basic legislation like the annual budget frequently stalls and we shut down the federal government while Congress pulls its proverbial head out of its arse.

They are. But the super-majority at multiple levels required to do so make them a non-starter for the petty "give my team an edge" and "force the states that aren't on my team to act like the ones that are" stuff everyone wants to use them for.

swing states, Pennsylvania, michigan, wisconsin, nevada, arizona, are some. Florida used to be one but they've gone full on red (boomer population % has increased drastically over the past 20 years). I hope there is a schism in the republican party soon over Roe and other privacy rights that are under attack by the Magas.

What narrative is that? Is it untrue? I don’t need the New York Times to remind me that North Dakota and South Dakota get twice as many Senators as my very large and populace state.

Their US-centric narrative that all our problems would be solved if people like them were afforded their rightful majority rule, and control over the lives of the rural, the old, et al.

I just want my vote to count as much as anyone else's. You can try to paint that as a nefarious agenda if you like but it squares with the 14th amendment and modern thinking on the issue. The country was founded on only white landowners being able to vote and we've evolved quite a bit since then. I think it's time we evolve some more. It's pretty gross that North Dakota + South Dakota gets twice the representation in the Senate as california.

Tyranny of the majority is a nefarious agenda, yes. It doesn’t square with modern thinking — it squares with the US liberal narrative that if we could just force the wrong-thinkers to conform, our problems would be solved.

“You believe in democracy, you dumb liberal” isn’t the huge own you think it is.

Same in Poland, uk, turkey, USA…

almost all western countries appear to be flattening or decreasing in population. Even the curves in India and China are flattening out

Yeah it does sound like nobody wants the young people that are already on the planet, why bother making more unwanted young people?

Then the young will become the childless elderly majority in a few decades benefiting from policies that they enact.

Nothing better than getting your revenge by letting your anger out on unrelated people.

There is an obvious problem with this. Being bullied makes me feels worse but bullying others doesn't make me happy, it makes me feel even worse.

I hardly think people in your own electorate are unrelated to you.

Also this isn't vengeance. It's the norm that the majority of resources should go to the majority of people. This is compounded in this case as the majority will have earned these resources through a lifetime of labor and in addition be the most in need as they are elderly.

How is this bullying?

Sounds eerily like the US

That's how Macron just got re-elected in France.

Mainly because older people aren’t spending their lives on Facebook and twitter, getting spoon fed with massive hate campaigns against the only remaining electable person who isn’t sold to the kremlin.

This seems like a win for once. Hard to believe the youth in France would be duped by the right wing hate of Le Pen and her ilk.

The youth wanted Melechon and then were forced between Macron and Le Pen..

This summary is too short.

As short as Macron's campaign ;)

I am confused - could you explain your comment in greater detail?

People 60 and more voted massively in favour of Macron. Source (FR): https://www.leparisien.fr/elections/presidentielle/president...

The vote for Macron was predominant among the elderly. Number 3 Mélenchon (radical left) got the votes from the 35- (and he was one of the 2 candidates actually proposing something against climate change). Le Pen (#2, far right) was in first place in-between. It does not mean that everything is explained by age though.