Random political thought thread.

[ceecee]

Exactly, however I think that the guy is simply unhappy with certain trends and probably under plenty of stress. After all US has certain elements in which they are closer to what you call (dictatorships/military rule, theocratic, communist) rather than the rest of developed world. Therefore such reaction was kinda expected based on what I was posing. In typical developed country Trump's program wouldn't really have a shot ... however in US it evidently does. Therefore if Trump wins again we should stop pretending that US is truly "one of us". I know that these are harsh words as well but I think we have to be honest with ourselves if Trump wins again. Especially in the case that it is pretty convincing victory.

The fact that Trump exists as a possible anything should be enough to show that the US isn't "one of us". Not trustworthy (dunno if we ever were) and certainly not a country that anyone would want to work with. More like not much of a choice otherwise. GOP included - they're full of Christian nationalist accelerationists, criming mfers and various moronic sheep. Dems are enablers - keeps them from having to do anything since "we don't have the numbers" in the house and senate bullshit. I don't think the US is alone in it's far right swing - this is happening in Europe too (I assure you I hear about it in every email and phone call from my in-laws in the Baltic). My point is that none of this is new but the fact that it likely is going to end up the way it did last time is depressing.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

The fact that Trump exists as a possible anything should be enough to show that the US isn't "one of us". Not trustworthy (dunno if we ever were) and certainly not a country that anyone would want to work with. More like not much of a choice otherwise. GOP included - they're full of Christian nationalist accelerationists, criming mfers and various moronic sheep. Dems are enablers - keeps them from having to do anything since "we don't have the numbers" in the house and senate bullshit. I don't think the US is alone in it's far right swing - this is happening in Europe too (I assure you I hear about it in every email and phone call from my in-laws in the Baltic). My point is that none of this is new but the fact that it likely is going to end up the way it did last time is depressing.

I went by what I felt last time, and I felt that things were going to go very poorly. I wanted to compare it to 2004. I was wrong.

Maybe the way I've been feeling about things recently is also wrong. I've been tempted to compare it with 2016. Certainly, there are similarities. But, nothing is written. It's a matter of convincing people to go out and vote, and do it for Biden. Can it be done? Probably. It remains to be seen whether it will be done; certainly, people are demoralized for a variety of reasons, some of them very understandable.

The ultimate problem here, as it often is, is one of morale. In this case, people often don't see anything worth fighting for that's on the table, and therefore see no reason to fight. Is this true, though? Is there nothing on the table worth fighting for?

 

[Tomb1]

I think that is a bit harsh. Myself, and I would argue most people who live in representative democracies with a low corruption index (i.e. G7 countries) have a pretty good standard of living. So to say representative democracy doesn't work in any meaningful way is simply not true.

And from what I observer of non democratic countries (dictatorships/military rule, theocratic, communist), their standard of living is lower and often much lower.

Democracy has its flaws, but it is the best system anyone has come up with so far. I think the system itself is ok, the main flaw is many elections turn into popularity contests instead of competence/policy contests, but that is mainly a result of an ignorant and/or uninvolved electorate. People tend to vote on emotional issues rather than policy issues. And some people tend to not vote at all. That's a product of human nature, which is decidedly hard to change.

That's a rosy colored view of democracy with a state. Colin Powell emerged on the scene as an honorable, upright, stand-up guy. Politics turned him into a scavenging bureaucratic weasel who lied, lied, lied to manufacture support from the public for an invasion into Iraq...which Cheney's company Halliburton grabbed all the big oil contracts for. The lesson is if representative democracy can corrupt colin powell, it corrupts any run of the mill politician. That's just the nature of the system.

Democracy with a state is the best system anyone has come up with in terms of being able to have a populace running inside a hamster wheel without having to put a gun to their head...you seriously cannot tell me that the population in a democracy has any more external freedom than a dictatorship when it is a demonstrable fact so many citizens marched off to their own deaths in a pointless war called Vietnam. Muhammad Ali didn't go because he understood the war made no sense, and he got thrown into jail. You're talking differences on paper, but in reality, there's no real practical difference.

Those low corruption indexes are garbage, people don't engage in the sophisticated analysis required to sniff out the corruption in G7 countries. Keep in mind that the opiates of the masses includes more than just religion....it also includes keeping people numbed out through hedonistic comforts. So just because your standard of living may be higher doesn't mean that your external freedoms or quality of life are any higher or that you've attained any type of truer happiness. It just means that more people in your country have been programmed to associate quality of life with the attainment of status and other false needs -- working hard in order to consume, consume, consume, so they keep that hamster wheel spinning.

 

[Virtual ghost]

The fact that Trump exists as a possible anything should be enough to show that the US isn't "one of us". Not trustworthy (dunno if we ever were) and certainly not a country that anyone would want to work with. More like not much of a choice otherwise. GOP included - they're full of Christian nationalist accelerationists, criming mfers and various moronic sheep. Dems are enablers - keeps them from having to do anything since "we don't have the numbers" in the house and senate bullshit. I don't think the US is alone in it's far right swing - this is happening in Europe too (I assure you I hear about it in every email and phone call from my in-laws in the Baltic). My point is that none of this is new but the fact that it likely is going to end up the way it did last time is depressing.

Truth to be told American hard right is story for itself. The whole gun thing, undoing government completely, openly pay to play healthcare and education ... etc. In Europe nationalistic tendencies are rising due to overly free trade and mass immigration but things aren't going nearly as far as in US. When it comes to economy even the democratic party is to the right of my far right. Over the years I haven't heard out of them a single word against socialized medicine. After all some of these people are even working in the system. Thus you really need a vacation to truly sum up all the differences of both systems. Trying to directly compare this with Trump is just wrong. Trump is far more "crazy" than what is going in Europe. Not to mention that his chances of winning anything of significance are much much higher. While in Europe multiparty system makes things much more complicated to take over.

Plus as my last post in the other thread suggests the "populist wave " in Europe is starting to lose speed. Since people are starting to realize where things are going. Not to mention that campaign for federal elections is speeding up, so now even average Joe pays attention. However I can't really say the same for US. You are basically every man for himself and thus you really struggle with sorting out certain things. Plus the fact that you have only 2 parties only adds to black and white thinking (pun intended). Therefore you can't really directly equalize situation for you and me. With all due respect but you are in much deeper problems than me.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I went by what I felt last time, and I felt that things were going to go very poorly. I wanted to compare it to 2004. I was wrong.

Maybe the way I've been feeling about things recently is also wrong. I've been tempted to compare it with 2016. Certainly, there are similarities. But, nothing is written. It's a matter of convincing people to go out and vote, and do it for Biden. Can it be done? Probably. It remains to be seen whether it will be done; certainly, people are demoralized for a variety of reasons, some of them very understandable.

The ultimate problem here, as it often is, is one of morale. In this case, people often don't see anything worth fighting for that's on the table, and therefore see no reason to fight. Is this true, though? Is there nothing on the table worth fighting for?

In the end it all comes down to turn out even in much deeper ways than most people understand. After all why would anyone start their local campaign for fundamental change if they know that the people wouldn't show up in the primaries ? What means that establishment will take races/seats. While on the other hand if people wouldn't show up why would establishment even try to present something new to the people ? If you stay home that is actually a signal that you are happy with things as they are. Therefore people not voting is simply wrong message however you turn it. To be honest no one explained to me what all of my local seats are actually doing, but I researched that a little bit and in the end it turn out that it matters who actually seats there. Since those seats have direct say how something will be implemented. However until you actually vote you don't really realize how much of the stuff is going on even if it is never on TV. In the end it turned out that my neighborhood has some kind of mini 15 seat parliament that makes decisions all the time, plus there are some other seats as well. However you don't notice any of that that until you actually get a ballot in your hands and ask yourself "for what is this ?"


At this point it can be argued US supreme court will be a conservative one by something like 2035 at least. However if Trump wins that line will probably move to mid century. While whole example of abortion directly shows why all of this matters. In other words some people in the mid west stayed home more so than usual and this is the consequence. So this whole story that it doesn't matter is for the most part made up just so that people stay home. In a sense this is anesthetic that puts people to rest.

As I said before, every time there is some kind of a vote people should go out and vote. If anything that is because that gives the impression "we are paying attention, so don't do anything stupid". In a real democracy voters are judge and the jury. Plus they can execute some people's careers if they really suck in their job. However if people don't vote in significant number then you basically have the system that is governing itself. What makes it to be some kind of a pseudo-dictatorship (and then people will wonder why everything sucks). Democracy without votes is basically like a car without fuel, there is no way that it will get the job done.

 

[Virtual ghost]

 

[The Cat]

 

[ceecee]

Adding to that video, this is how stupid this Alabama state rep just assumes voters are.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1753929781182095471

 

[SensEye]

Democracy with a state is the best system anyone has come up with in terms of being able to have a populace running inside a hamster wheel without having to put a gun to their head...you seriously cannot tell me that the population in a democracy has any more external freedom than a dictatorship when it is a demonstrable fact so many citizens marched off to their own deaths in a pointless war called Vietnam. Muhammad Ali didn't go because he understood the war made no sense, and he got thrown into jail. You're talking differences on paper, but in reality, there's no real practical difference.

Conversely, you are being far to cynical. Vietnam was quite some time ago. And even that war had limited conscription. I believe it is now considered a significant foreign policy mistake, although the US continues to make many of those.

I am not just talking differences on paper. G7 nations may not be corruption free, but they all have free and fair elections (surely you don't believe Trump's BS to the contrary). Many countries demonstrably don't. Russia, Venezuela, many African nations. I'm not even sure if North Korea or China even bother with sham elections where there is only one party to vote for (they might, but god knows why). Also, I can openly criticize government politicians with no fear of reprisals. Try that in Russia/China/PRK. You won't have your freedom for long. There are no drug cartels running roughshod over neighborhoods murdering politicians or judges who they can't bribe. Islamic

I could go on an on. There is a vast practical difference.

Those low corruption indexes are garbage, people don't engage in the sophisticated analysis required to sniff out the corruption in G7 countries. Keep in mind that the opiates of the masses includes more than just religion....it also includes keeping people numbed out through hedonistic comforts. So just because your standard of living may be higher doesn't mean that your external freedoms or quality of life are any higher or that you've attained any type of truer happiness. It just means that more people in your country have been programmed to associate quality of life with the attainment of status and other false needs -- working hard in order to consume, consume, consume, so they keep that hamster wheel spinning.

Again, I don't agree. Standard of living being higher is directly correlated with happiness. I have never gone hungry or not had a roof over my head. I have next to no fear of criminal thugs threatening me or my property (random shit can happen, but it is generally rare). I was granted the opportunity for free primary and secondary education and reasonably priced post secondary education. This is true of almost all G7 countries (except maybe the US when it comes to post secondary costs). If I need health care I will generally get it at no direct cost (i.e. I pay via taxes). Maybe not in as timely a fashion as I like, but things can't be that bad or life expectancy in G7 countries wouldn't be among the highest in the world.

Sure people have to work. But back in more primitive times, people had to spend almost all their waking hours laboring just to provide themselves with food and shelter. 40 hours a week or so is hardly unbearable. And for that I get a lot of creature comforts over and above basic necessity. I like those comforts, they make me happy.

I'm an INTP so status means nothing to me. I don't I have any false needs. I base my consumption based on what I can afford and what I want. I carry no significant debt so I cannot be forced to stay on the treadmill. If less savvy folks buy into advertising and status seeking behavior and get caught in a cycle of living beyond their means, that is hardly the result of social democracy.

 

[Virtual ghost]

That's a rosy colored view of democracy with a state. Colin Powell emerged on the scene as an honorable, upright, stand-up guy. Politics turned him into a scavenging bureaucratic weasel who lied, lied, lied to manufacture support from the public for an invasion into Iraq...which Cheney's company Halliburton grabbed all the big oil contracts for. The lesson is if representative democracy can corrupt colin powell, it corrupts any run of the mill politician. That's just the nature of the system.

Democracy with a state is the best system anyone has come up with in terms of being able to have a populace running inside a hamster wheel without having to put a gun to their head...you seriously cannot tell me that the population in a democracy has any more external freedom than a dictatorship when it is a demonstrable fact so many citizens marched off to their own deaths in a pointless war called Vietnam. Muhammad Ali didn't go because he understood the war made no sense, and he got thrown into jail. You're talking differences on paper, but in reality, there's no real practical difference.

Those low corruption indexes are garbage, people don't engage in the sophisticated analysis required to sniff out the corruption in G7 countries. Keep in mind that the opiates of the masses includes more than just religion....it also includes keeping people numbed out through hedonistic comforts. So just because your standard of living may be higher doesn't mean that your external freedoms or quality of life are any higher or that you've attained any type of truer happiness. It just means that more people in your country have been programmed to associate quality of life with the attainment of status and other false needs -- working hard in order to consume, consume, consume, so they keep that hamster wheel spinning.

I will also take a shot at all of this.


The key to everything what you are saying is the old saying "USA is not a democracy, but a constitutional republic". I am pretty sure you heard something like this over your life. However that claim is the key, since this means that there are topics that people living in the US shouldn't open or question (at least not much). What in the end led to many problems which eventually resulted with current situation. However the bottom line is exactly in the fact that the democracy was never fully expanded (as in other fully developed nations). If you think that your elections with just 2 parties playing games over the electoral college are genuine representative democracy .... I have some bad news for you. In other words this is the most basic democracy you can get, which in a sense no longer fits the time in which we are living. Back in a day all of this was pretty revolutionary and visionary, however better systems have been invented since centuries have passed. Which is exactly why there is a problem with the "constitutional republic". Since that set of rules doesn't allow too much of a change, however without change the odds are that you will not be able to keep up with the world. Structure of the government is basically like a operating system, so if you don't upgrade that from time to time you will start to fall behind in economy, development, quality of life .... and the problems will only snowball as the time goes by. Therefore the problem isn't in representative democracy but in the fact that there is deficit of it in the system. Plus the fact that good chunk of people doesn't even bother to vote only makes things worse.



Therefore since the odds are that you will not be able to change the system in the near future you can at least increase the number of people that votes. Since that offers at least some protection from the worst forms of radicalism and exploitation. Larger turnout almost never favors radicals and people with "fairly flexible morals". Even if most of none voters would actually join the Republican party they could totally overwhelm in numbers the crazy stuff that are going over there. Therefore if you can't change the system at this point you can at least try to change the parties. Which one you choose doesn't really matter all that much as long as you stand for the basic morals and commons sense. What matters since both parties seem to be short in those departments. However if you would have more of that you would have something that looks like something that can be called representative democracy. The whole problem is that you don't have enough of that out in the field, not that it can't work.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Remember the train derailment in East Palestine?

'People do avoid me': How a toxic train derailment split a village in two

"Eighty percent of the people just want us to ... move on. Be done.To try to come back to where we once were," he said. "And then 10% just don't know what to think. And the rest [think] this was the worst thing that could ever happen to East Palestine, and it's going to be devastating forever, and we'll never get back from it."

I don't know what to make of a fact like the bolded. This is the sort of attitude I find the most frustrating concerning any sort of political issue. How does one interact with complacent citizens, the sort of person who thinks all the good respectable people in charge are taking care of everything, and not lose their cool? I understand you need empathy when talking to people like that, but where does it come from?

If this happened to where I lived, I would be furious.

 

[The Cat]

I don't know what to make of a fact like the bolded. This is the sort of attitude I find the most frustrating concerning any sort of political issue. How does one interact with complacent citizens, the sort of person who thinks all the good respectable people in charge are taking care of everything, and not lose their cool? I understand you need empathy when talking to people like that, but where does it come from?

If this happened to where I lived, I would be furious.

Gently.

 

[Tomb1]

Conversely, you are being far to cynical. Vietnam was quite some time ago. And even that war had limited conscription. I believe it is now considered a significant foreign policy mistake, although the US continues to make many of those.

I am not just talking differences on paper. G7 nations may not be corruption free, but they all have free and fair elections (surely you don't believe Trump's BS to the contrary). Many countries demonstrably don't. Russia, Venezuela, many African nations. I'm not even sure if North Korea or China even bother with sham elections where there is only one party to vote for (they might, but god knows why). Also, I can openly criticize government politicians with no fear of reprisals. Try that in Russia/China/PRK. You won't have your freedom for long. There are no drug cartels running roughshod over neighborhoods murdering politicians or judges who they can't bribe. Islamic

I could go on an on. There is a vast practical difference.

You're missing the point....I don't deny that those countries exert control through pain stimulus and grapple with corruption. You've only highlighted a "vast practical difference" in the style and methods of control between a dictatorship and a democracy with a State.

Highlights my point, actually....Democracy with a State does not rely as heavily on pain stimulation to herd masses....rather it herds masses by controlling their concept of happiness...creating a culture of hedonistic consumers, that slave away at their jobs and cut each other's throats so they can try and accumulate wealth to buy dream cars, dream houses, etc....people are pitted against each-other in a competition for material acquisition. These false needs keeps the masses compliant and stupid, so when the State say needs to manipulate support for a war such as the invasion into iraq it's not hard to do. if somebody actually breaks out of the box....like Ali did back in Vietnam (and refuses to do something)...that's when the iron fist of the state reveals itself.

The illusion of freedom is a more powerful method of control than putting a gun to everybody's head, but at the end of the day the populace's lives are just as structured as in your average dictatorship -- school, work, marriage, reproduction, retirement, death....that artificial reality is only disturbed when Vietnams come along. Then its time for people to leave their bubble and give their life up for the State or go to jail. So the touted external freedom is a load of crap.

The State department does not view the analytical realpolitik framework that made Vietnam a "rational" option as a mistake...More importantly, you have to keep in mind that the State department has not rebuked the framework that justifies forcing the masses into serving a realpolitick foreign policy war agenda or else go to jail. That they don't view as a mistake. The masses are probably more restricted and dumbed down than they were back in the 70s....dont' forget they recently fell for Colin Powell's blatant manipulation of the invasion into iraq....so the fact vietnam happened 'awhile ago' is not a big deal

As for your point on elections, the masses here are not some special enlightened bunch that it even matters elections aren't fixed. They don't have to be. At the end of the day people end up electing demagogues...you cynically said yourself that popularity wins more than competence....but its not just popularity, it's also rhetoric and propaganda...so whether a demagogue gets to power through a free and fair election or a fixed election doesn't change the fact demagogues overwhelmingly dominate in these elections. Gerrymandering also falls off the corruption index because its a more sophisticated method of corrupting the outcome of a State elections. Keep in mind that corruption in G7 countries has a much more wider and global impact than corruption in small, poor African countries do even if the corruption isn't as frequent...that qualitative difference gets lost in the superficial analysis which goes into those ridiculous corruption indexes.

I'll put the FBI's history of corruption against any Law Enforcement agency in the world. Herbert Hoover was the king of corruption...and the FBI got even worse as time went on....for 30 something years giving Whitey Bulger and Steve Flemmi' license to commit rape and murder throughout South Boston with impunity....that's a fact. I'm not even getting into the racially motivated beatings, murders and probably rapes police officers throughout the country have dished out over the last hundred years. And if you need any genuine comparison look no further than the pandemic of mass shootings in the USA. America leads the way in random, unprovoked violence....facts. That's not cynicism....just the hard reality.

Mass Shootings by Country 2023 - Wisevoter

Mass shootings have sadly become a common occurrence in the world, plaguing countries from all continents. In 2019 and 2020, numerous mass shootings occurred across the globe, leaving hundreds of people dead or injured. While the United States has consistently been the country with the most mass...

wisevoter.com

 

[Virtual ghost]

Tucker Carlson confirms he’s interviewing Vladimir Putin

If this truly becomes a thing then everything will be made pretty obvious in the terms of who is who.

 

[SensEye]

You're missing the point....I don't deny that those countries exert control through pain stimulus and grapple with corruption. You've only highlighted a "vast practical difference" in the style and methods of control between a dictatorship and a democracy with a State.

Highlights my point, actually....Democracy with a State does not rely as heavily on pain stimulation to herd masses....rather it herds masses by controlling their concept of happiness...creating a culture of hedonistic consumers, that slave away at their jobs and cut each other's throats so they can try and accumulate wealth to buy dream cars, dream houses, etc....people are pitted against each-other in a competition for material acquisition. These false needs keeps the masses compliant and stupid, so when the State say needs to manipulate support for a war such as the invasion into iraq it's not hard to do. if somebody actually breaks out of the box....like Ali did back in Vietnam (and refuses to do something)...that's when the iron fist of the state reveals itself.

I don't think I am missing the point. I do not feel my "freedom" is an illusion. I do agree Democracy does not rely as heavily on pain stimulation as other non-democratic systems and that in itself probably makes it the best system. Nobody wants pain.

In any event, it's fine to criticize, but what would you propose as an alternative? Communism has been shown not to work. Sure the masses don't compete with each other because there is no benefit to doing so. The problem is, nobody is motivated at all because there is no disincentive to free riding. Not to mention when the 'state' has zero accountability, it always leads to massive corruption. Perhaps you have some sort of ultra libertarianism approach in mind (you seem to have a burr under your saddle regarding freedom). Not workable IMO. That's basically anarchy.

If you've got something better than democracy in mind please share. I can't think of any such system.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Speaking of supposed "electoral democracy doesn't work".

Why Nevada might not matter in the GOP presidential race



I mean let's be honest, this is a joke of a system. Stuff like this should be absolutely impossible if you are serious about voting and democracy.

As I said democracy works just fine, but for that you need to have election system based on common sense. What in this particular example evidently isn't the case. Thus voting rights of people in Nevada are evidently broken in the case that I got the situation right. This sounds so illogical that I am not even sure that I got it right. I probably did but this is just absurd.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Speaking of supposed "electoral democracy doesn't work".

Why Nevada might not matter in the GOP presidential race



I mean let's be honest, this is a joke of a system. Stuff like this should be absolutely impossible if you are serious about voting and democracy.

As I said democracy works just fine, but for that you need to have election system based on common sense. What in this particular example evidently isn't the case. Thus voting rights of people in Nevada are evidently broken in the case that I got the situation right. This sounds so illogical that I am not even sure that I got it right. I probably did but this is just absurd.

Well, the primaries are a joke. Not in basic concept, but in implementation. There is no reason why these should not be held on the same day, just like election day. Can you imagine how stupid and dumb it would be if we handled the general election with each state voting one at a time or in random batches?

 

[Virtual ghost]

Well, the primaries are a joke. Not in basic concept, but in implementation. There is no reason why these should not be held on the same day, just like election day. Can you imagine how stupid and dumb it would be if we handled the general election with each state voting one at a time or in random batches?

As I said this made sense when you had to travel around huge country on a horse or by train. However in the digital age this is indeed absurd system. Three months campaign for primaries and then the primary election day, and then another three months for the general. It isn't that you guys have multiparty system so that you have to constantly introduce the parties. In theory 2x2 months could do the trick.


Most developed countries are keeping campaigns fairly short in order to lower the drama and that the bottom line is clear. While if you drag out the whole thing then you get more insults, more flip-flopping .... etc. What is garbage info that should be cut out.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

As I said this made sense when you had to travel around huge country on a horse or by train. However in the digital age this is indeed absurd system. Three months campaign for primaries and then the primary election day, and then another three months for the general. It isn't that you guys have multiparty system so that you have to constantly introduce the parties. In theory 2x2 months could do the trick.


Most developed countries are keeping campaigns fairly short in order to lower the drama and that the bottom line is clear. While if you drag out the whole thing then you get more insults, more flip-flopping .... etc. What is garbage info that should be cut out.

Yup, and what I especially hate is the disproportionate influence the early states have on the whole thing. I've heard people try to justify it because it keeps states that aren't "representative enough" like New York or California from dominating everything and that's absurd. It's absurd because the only reason those states "dominate" everything is because a lot of people live there. Like it or not, that's home to a decent portion of the entire country, and perhaps that should be reflected in the way voting actually occurs.

They wouldn't be claiming special privileges or a plum spot on the lineup which is what would be truly unfair. This is a vote for the President of the entire country, not a vote for Governor, not a vote for Senator; there is no logical reason why this should not be one person, one vote. Why does it matter that we give the voices of agricultural states like Iowa or gambling meccas like Nevada a disproportionate influence? Why is their voice so important that it must drown out everyone else?

The logic given by defenders of the current system sounds like the logic people would use in the 18th century to argue why their slaves should be counted when it comes time to determine the awarding of congressional seats.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Yup, and what I especially hate is the disproportionate influence the early states have on the whole thing. I've heard people try to justify it because it keeps states that aren't "representative enough" like New York or California from dominating everything and that's absurd. It's absurd because the only reason those states "dominate" everything is because a lot of people live there. Like it or not, that's home to a decent portion of the entire country, and perhaps that should be reflected in the way voting actually occurs.

They wouldn't be claiming special privileges or a plum spot on the lineup which is what would be truly unfair. This is a vote for the President of the entire country, not a vote for Governor, not a vote for Senator; there is no logical reason why this should not be one person, one vote. Why does it matter that we give the voices of agricultural states like Iowa or gambling meccas like Nevada a disproportionate influence? Why is their voice so important that it must drown out everyone else?

The logic given by defenders of the current system sounds like the logic people would use in the 18th century to argue why their slaves should be counted when it comes time to determine the awarding of congressional seats.

Correct. The country evidently needs a major overhaul of the electoral system, since this is simply a joke. Especially because what in the end comes out of this mumbo-jumbo in a sense doesn't have genuine legitimacy. What in a way is huge problem and then you have debates like the one here: that democracy doesn't work. What is in a way confusing of causes and effects. Democracy with messed up election laws can't work, but that isn't fundamental feature of democracy.