• crispyhexagon [none/use name]
    ·
    4 years ago

    that is not what the electoral college does at all.

    it disproportionately counts the votes of landowners as being worth far more than those who do not own vast swathes of land.

    the deck is hardly "stacked against" people living in rural america, unless you count having to accept massive subsidies to not grow any product in your field, because uncle sam says economy line wants less corn, as being disadvantaged.

    preedit edit: not to say there isnt extreme poverty in rural america, there is, just that it is completely irrelevant to the electoral college

      • joshuaism [he/him]
        ·
        4 years ago

        Assuming what you say is true, what does it mean? It means that capitalism is unsustainable. Farmers armed with industrial agriculture will compete themselves into poverty and destroy the environment in the process.

      • crispyhexagon [none/use name]
        ·
        4 years ago

        most of the time (read:always) the "do not grow" subsidies are paid out after the product has already been grown, and often after its already been harvested. they just get paid above market value to not bring it to market. so it has literally zero to do with preventing a dustbowl

        theoretically it could be used that way, but it isnt the actual purpose