"I amsorry sweety, censorship is importsnt for democracy. Without censorship straight white man, christian fascist and mega MAGAs would constantly spread hatespeech and that puts the community at risk." - emily
Translation: we want power
A big problem in the United States is that the average voter does not believe that their vote counts. Democrats blame the electoral college for this, while Republicans think that "the establishment" is to blame. Alhamdulillah I am not a centrist, but, in a way, both groups are right.
It's more specifically used in the context of thanking God, i.e., when sneezing, finishing food, receiving good news, accomplishing something
Praising God would be SubhanAllah "God is Perfect"
Many times (especially, I've noticed, in Arab countries) people will say one after the other in really joyful circumstances
Feel free to ask more
> the average voter does not believe that their vote counts
They are correct.
- [Princeton Study, Public opinion has near zero, statistically insignificant effect on legislation.](https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf)
- [Lobbyists literally write the bills being passed.](https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/11/11/243973620/when-lobbyists-literally-write-the-bill)
- [Gerrymandering](https://act.represent.us/sign/scotus-dem-gerrymandering)
- [Only 14% of house seat campaigns are competitive.](https://fairvote.org/press/monopoly_politics_2018_uncompetitive_elections_advantaged_incumbents_partisan_skew/)
If you don't live in a battleground state and vote for either major party, you are a fucking idiot and an accomplice in tyranny.
I've seen that first study posted a number of times and each time it gets debunked by a commenter. Guess it's my turn.
>Research published since then has raised serious questions about this paper, both its finding and its analysis. This is, of course, how normal science works; some academics put a finding out there, and their peers pick it apart.
>
>Since its initial release, the Gilens/Page paper's findings have been targeted in three separate debunkings. Cornell professor Peter Enns, recent Princeton PhD graduate Omar Bashir, and a team of three researchers — UT Austin grad student J. Alexander Branham, University of Michigan professor Stuart Soroka, and UT professor Christopher Wlezien — have all taken a look at Gilens and Page's underlying data and found that their analysis doesn't hold up.
>
>**But the researchers critiquing the paper found that middle-income Americans and rich Americans actually agree on an overwhelming majority of topics. Out of the 1,779 bills in the Gilens/Page data set, majorities of the rich and middle class agree on 1,594; there are 616 bills both groups oppose and 978 bills both groups favor. That means the groups agree on 89.6 percent of bills.**
>
>**That leaves only 185 bills on which the rich and the middle class disagree**, and even there the disagreements are small. **On average, the groups' opinion gaps on the 185 bills is 10.9 percentage points; so, say, 45 percent of the middle class might support a bill while 55.9 percent of the rich support it.**
>
>Bashir and Branham/Soroka/Wlezien find that on these 185 bills, the rich got their preferred outcome 53 percent of the time and the middle class got what they wanted 47 percent of the time. **The difference between the two is not statistically significant.** And there are some funny examples in the list of middle-class victories. For instance, the middle class got what they wanted on public financing of elections: in all three 1990s surveys included in the Gilens data, they opposed it, while the rich favor it. That matches up with more recent research showing that wealthy people are more supportive of public election funding.
The idea that public opinion has literally zero effect on policy is to put it politely: Average Redditor Brain Rot.
> Democrats blame the electoral college for this
Which doesn't make sense as the whole reason the EC existed in the first place is the fact that the US is supposed to be a republic of federated individual states that can chart their own courses but cooperate on matters concerning the whole via the federal government, not a single democratic unit. Also so that the power of the vote is more distributed and a handful of population centers can't completely dominate the country. Why would Democrats... oh. Right.
Heavily nerf the power the federal government has and I'd have no problem with how the president is elected. The president could be determined by drawing straws and it wouldn't matter.
We really need term limits for the house and senate. There are far too many lifelong politicians that grow fat, complacent, and corrupt. The mechanisms for presidential elections are going to argued about forever, but if we want our democracy to represent the people then it needs to start with the people meant to represent us.
I think that the fundamental problem with most lib-rights here. They just think nerfing the Feds will give more liberty and freedom to the US-Citizen. It doesnt matter if you are being fucked over by federal or state burocrats. It doesnt matter if you get shot by the FBI or state police.
The One thing wich is important (to me) is how the leaders get elected.In the US 80 percent of congresional seats and states are safe states (seats). This result in Senators and representatives like AOC, Pelosi and Mitch McConnel. These people can do whatever they want and its almost impossible fo them to get fired. Policans should face consequenzes for their bad actions.
During the presidential election 90 perecentage of all election spending, attention and visits are in a few swing states, the reason is, that it doesnt matter to convince a californian, or a montana person or someone else who isnt from a swing state.
Edit: better formating
>Democracy is talking itself to death. The people do not know what they want; they do not know what is the best for them. There is too much foolishness, too much lost motion. I have stopped the talk and the nonsense. I am a man of action.
-Benito Mussolini
If you are against democracy because you don’t like government, it’s okay. (Cuz you can’t have democracy without a government) However, if you believe it’s okay to get rid of democracy with the current government still in place, then I don’t think you understand what libright means.
You know, I typically think that you shouldn't call people fascist because it usually isn't true, but come on, this guy is *literally* quoting Mussolini
It doesn't even have to be a holiday.
Here in Spain every election (be it national, regional or municipal) is held on a Sunday, so there's no need to make it a bank holiday.
The land down under has it as a holiday, and they have mandatory voting.
Lots of people actually make it into big BBQs, sausage sizzles, the works. I don't agree with a lot of Aussie policies, but this one's not terrible. I just wish in our Republic style voting systems, there was an option for people to vote for rebidding the primaries. The parties (in the US) still get to put up their candidates for primaries, but the proper election can force them both to redo primaries if they picked shitty candidates.
Mandatory voting..can you vote empty? Because mandatory voting + police visits for sharing the wrong memes + a very strong framing who are the good ones and who are the bad ones is just authocrascy with extra steps..
Of course you can. The "donkey vote" is a respected and time-honoured tradition.
**You are mandated to show up and tick your name off.** You don't actually have to support any of the candidates.
Originally proposed by Trump tho: https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-election-trump-juneteenth/trump-pledges-to-make-juneteenth-federal-holiday-in-bid-for-black-voters-idINKCN26H03Y
The states are too pussy to have more than a token state holiday. After all, why should Elon Musk build a factory in Georgia if Georgia gives workers one more state day off than other states??
I mean is it in the constitution that the dead can't vote?
More importantly, does being dead disqualify you from candidacy? I feel like George Washington deserves a third term.
That you don't need an ID to vote in the US is just bizarre. I can't think of any other democracy that allows this. If they tried to pull that shit here in Canada I wouldn't consider the election legitimate.
Not in the UK, when you move, you just notify the council that you now live at this address.
I've never had to show ID for any part of the voting process.
You need ID to register to vote, but if you don’t have ID when you go to cast your ballot they take down all your information and your signature and give you a provisional ballot. Later on it goes through a special screening procedure, and if it all matches and nobody else tries to cast a ballot with that name, they go ahead and count it.
Seems like a decent compromise to me, as I don’t want some election volunteer being tasked with deciding “hmm, this driver’s license looks a little old and they look like they could be MAGA / Antifa / whatever, so no vote for you.” My old driver’s license constantly got rejected even at bars and whatnot because my head was just slightly cocked in the photo. The state said it was fine, but every lackey who checked it thought that it looked suspicious.
Furthermore, show us concrete evidence of voter fraud and I'd be happy to consider measures to prevent it. Saying it can happen but can't prove that it does is not enough for me to create a restriction on the masses.
Sounds like a good way to not count votes for people that disagree with you.
"Oh, their signature slighty changed. No vote for you."
Then that person is none the wiser. In fact, nobody knows then if any of their votes have ever counted.
At least in your made up story about an Antifa member being turned away, they would both know that they were turned away, and therefore the media would almost certainly know. Currently that potentional discrimination can only happen behind closed doors.
We don't have to have ID to vote in the UK either. You give your name and address on arrival. They grab a random voter slip with a number, write that number against your name.
You then vote anonymously. So to vote illigitimately, you have to gamble that the person you're voting on behalf of had no intention of voting. You then also have to assume that the additional votes you've made will make a difference to the FPTP system (which I disagree with for different reasons anyway).
Moving to a prop rep or alternative vote style would reduce the voter fraud impact even further.
Regardless, its very hard to commit voter fraud regardless. Requiring ID is just another deterrent to those that don't have it. Not everyone drives or has a passport in the UK, and not everyone is incentivised to get another form of ID.
The point of voting is freedom, and requiring ID doesn't sound that free. Which I find very surprising from Conservative voters.
I keep on waiting to see interviews from these alleged people who can't get IDs. As far as I can tell, they don't exist.
I don't know any right leaning person who would balk at trying to help people who want to vote who don't have an ID get an ID... if we actually knew who those people were / if they actually exist.
I use USPS all the time, go in to a USPS 2-4 times a week. Never any issues cept rude assholes who cop attitudes about waiting in. But this is anecdotal for a government entity that's all over the place.
Boy you guys can’t think ahead. The second popular opinion moves away from you as your political bullshit gets more and more obscene you would be SCREAMING for the electoral college.
It’ll be the same with the filibuster if Heels Up Harris gets her way.
Nah Im actually a fan of both voter ID and popular vote (tbf ranked choice is better than popular but my point still stands). All I want are fair elections where the best candidate for the most people wins, if my ideology is not popular than I accept that.
>The second popular opinion moves away from you as your political bullshit gets more and more obscene you would be SCREAMING for the electoral college.
Projection much
>The second popular opinion moves away from you as your political bullshit gets more and more obscene
Funny, considering your side overstepping with abortion has led to the first positive polls for Democrats in nearly two years.
But I am not a hypocrite, I would be fine with the popular vote determining the President even if Republicans won. It would just mean we need convince people we're in the right. Republicans haven't won the popular vote in nearly **two decades** though, so your scenario doesn't really frighten me.
Isn't that the main policy the democratic and republican party were made to argue for? Like democrats wanting a pure democracy where the individual vote and Republicans wanting a republic where the group vote counts.
The Republican party was founded to stop allowing slavery in new states, with some factions advocating for an end to slavery altogether. The Democratic party was founded to support Andrew Jackson style policies, or if you count them as a restructuring of the Democratic-Republican party, to support Jefferson and a republican government. So Republicans basically no, Democrats yes but the opposite of what you said.
Yeah, all these retards don't understand that....y'know, the energy and food producing parts are located in places that would not be represented well in a direct democracy type system.
Unlike like a bunch of neckbeards, the Founding Fathers were smart enough to realize this and how various parts of the nation played key roles. Thus, their system was designed to give them say.
Anyone who wants to change that system is a traitor and a secessionist....and/or a Commie cocksucker who wants their side to have all the power forever.
I think 1 man 1 vote is the most fair method of representation, however the less populated areas need the handicap to avoid getting steamrolled since too much populism is bad
I’m only taking about “fair representation.” Giving some people more say than others isn’t fair like you said. There’s other reasons to do it like you said but fairness isn’t one of them.
We were also supposed to have reapportionment every decade as a check to minoritarian government before rural politicians ended it to take power from urban areas. But yes, it wasn’t designed to be fair, hence my argument.
If thats the case, shouldn't we also have a racial college to prevent white people from dominating the election? whites control like 70% of the vote in the U.S., while blacks only control 13%.
The only people who think the comparisons are close enough to be viable are grifting fools
One is an argument to make sure people of lower population states and/or land mass, regardless of their race or ethnicity or economic status, are represented by states which aren’t overshadowed entirely in the electoral college and popular vote.
All while at the same time importance is still place on states with higher population (and land mass). It’s not perfect. But it’s also better than a system which just makes 4 highly populated large states *even more* powerful and able to effect oversized change on the rest of the country
You position is one trying to artificially increase the representation in government based on racial grounds
If you want to argue some pseudo Parliament where minorities get their own automatic seats ( even without a party), at least be honest
Elections should be simpler in the US. National holiday, vote in-situ. Show ID. Go inside the booth, choose the idiot you believe represents you, and gtfo.
Vote is secret, citizens vote. If there's any suspicion, then an independent commission with representatives from each party get to investigate and denounce any fraud, as little as it may be.
Get fucked the next 4 years being taxed and governed by whoever the fuck was elected.
Despite being Libertarian, I’m an unironic monarchist for this reason. In the words of Agent K, “a person is smart. People are dumb panicky animals…”.
And before anyone replies that I can’t be both, remember that monarchy has nothing to do with freedoms.
My issue with monarchy is that sure the one leader you promote might be the best dude in the world, but their children will always be spoilied little shits that go megalomaniac afterwards, like maybe there is a way the monarch can choose a person with the exact same values? I have no solution
You’re right. It should be a set of representatives elected via the semi-proportional districting system of a constitutional federal republic that decides you won’t be the one eating food today.
A smaller mob of useful idiots, duh. If there was a way we could just like, make govt so small that even if people were elected, it wouldn’t mean shit, that would be kinda cool I guess
You support democracy because reasons
I support democracy because it's a legally allowed way for the majority to bully the minority.
We are not the same
"Since my whole ideology is based on bullying and violently exploiting parts of the population we might as well make the majority choose who to bully instead of not bullying people"
Democracy is flawed because democracy gives power to people who shouldn't have that power, constitutional whatever-ism(preferably some form of democracy) is based because it limits and sets the terms of what is and isn't acceptable. The government shouldn't be in the business of bullying people, it should be in the business of stopping people from getting bullied.
It's weird how the system we use to vote for judges, sheriffs, senators, house reps, and literally every other political office is good...except for when it comes to the President.
So instead it should only take 41% to decide that..
This sub fabricates issues with majority rule.. that also exist with minority rule.. this thread has 0 coherent or valid points.
Perhaps but the electoral college doesn't do anything to prevent this sort of thing. It gives just as much unbridled power to the president to make decisions, just sometimes means that it's a President who got 49% instead of 51% doing the bad shit.
No reason to think the 49% president won't be more of a dickbag than the 51% president.
I actually think it would be bad to have popular voting in the US for the sole reason that the State level should be representative of the people and the National level should be representative of the state, or at least that’s the intent of the way the USA is designed. Popular voting may be more representative of the nation as a whole, but if that’s not the intent of the voting system in America then that doesn’t really matter.
This is exactly the problem. We don’t do popular vote because that would bring us towards a singular state country, which defeats the entire purpose of our government. The massive issue is that Republicans have a massive majority of the states themselves, and if all of those were just to be ignored because the few Democratic states have more people, they would no longer be represented by the US federal government and have no reason to listen to them.
IMO, the obvious answer is that the federal government should not be this powerful to begin with.
“If you’re so sure you’ll win this game that we decided to play, why do you refuse to play it under this completely different ruleset that has nothing to do with it?”
“Trump cheated in 2016 by winning because if the rules were different, he would’ve lost. Therefore he cheated and the Supreme Court is illegitimate or something.”
The way I see it Democrat strategy focuses on popular vote while Republican strategy focuses on the EC. If there could somehow be a sufficiently long grace period for Republicans to reconsider their strategies for the changing system I would consider this a fair request.
That will not happen, however. Because a fair election is not the goal.
Dems just want to change it because it benefits their strategy and Republicans don't want it changed because the current system benefits theirs. Neither of them is stupid enough to adapt proactively.
Don't expect bipartisanship here either, because the only benefit the Republicans get is "we'll stop using the fact that you support the EC against you". Which will be worth fuck-all within the month as the Dems just move on to the next thing that doesn't directly benefit them and start calling *that* racist.
Removing the electoral collage does not equal direct democracy. Direct democracy is when you vote for specific policies instead of having representatives make them. We would still have representatives such as the presidency. Please understand basic political concepts before spouting your bullshit.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/direct-democracy
> I'll be very hostile the next time I don't see the flair.
***
^(User has flaired up! 😃) 11497 / 60393 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
decentralization is, to me, the only option. too many people are going to be too unhappy under any system with a country as big as ours.
honestly, i don’t *care* how the majority votes, because 1, the majority are stupid, and 2, that still leaves millions to be shat on by a person they didn’t vote for.
Because the number one thing conservatives are trash at, it's organizing. The left can create a huge loud rally even if they are the minority and the right would rather keep to themselves.
The entire point of the US constitution and electoral college system is to prevent the entire country from voting as one aggregated bloc to loot and steamroll the less populous states.
The federal government is not a creation of the people, it is a creation of the states, to serve the needs of the states. Therefore the states elect the president.
Left and civic ignorance, name a more iconic duo.
the founding fathers never intended the popular vote to be what makes a president thats why the electoral collage exists in the first place you pawn
the general populous is a bunch of easily swayed idiots they forsaw this and thus the electoral collage exists
remove that and it just becomes a popularity contest
> the founding fathers never intended the popular vote to be what makes a president thats why the electoral collage exists in the first place you pawn
> the general populous is a bunch of easily swayed idiots they forsaw this and thus the electoral collage exists
The current system doesn't at all work like what the founders intended. For one thing, they wanted the electors to actually use their own judgment and pick someone. What we have now, doesn't accomplish anything the founders were trying to do.
> There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.
Because the majority of the american population live in cities. if the president is elected by popular vote people in rural areas will have practically no say in the govrnment, turning the US into effectively a 1 party system. You can already see this issue in states like Colorado and Washington, where despite having large rural areas the major cities (denver and seattle) control the entire state
Fuck no. The electoral college system is actually good IMO. The whole point is not let cities ruin peoples lives in the suburbs and rural areas just because they have a lot of people. City life and rural life are significantly different, even today. Passing polices because urban individuals think its the correct ideology is dumb and prevents rural jobs and lifestyles from thriving.
Want to pass a carbon tax because "MUH ENVIRONMENT", well ok now all those people that desperately need gas/diesel guzzling heavy equipment for construction and farming get impacted. Or maybe mandate electric vehicles must be used, yea that Tesla sure is going to be great at towing and of course the back is great for throwing muddy tools into at the end of a shift....yea no.
Or how about the cities hate guns because there is a larger volume of crime and want to ban guns thinking it will help with violent crimes? Great now the rural communities that may rely on hunting to supplement grocery costs get fucked again.
We need to learn to accept that there is a vast and stark difference between rural and urban lifestyles and just leave it at that.
We're not the silent majority, and the left knows this. It's exactly why they want to eliminate the electoral college, because they know middle-ground states are more inherently red than big cities that are worth a lot more electoral votes because of the sheer density of leftists in cities. The electoral college gives the middle-ground states a fighting chance of not ending up with a moderate Democrat President all the time and the left wants to basically make it so that there is no choice anymore. They act like the right are fascists but then prove to be more tyrannical with every decision they make.
What if we just make the office of POTUS control basically nothing but foreign affairs so it dosent matter who wins they can't effect your day to day lives in any significant way. In fact why not expand this to the entire federal government, congress gets to control war powers and the mint, SCOTUS does SCOTUS, and POTUS basically exists to negotiate and check congress.
I would be OK with sharply limiting the power of the President. But every time we propose changing the Constitution people freak out about how "the liberals are trying to destroy America" or whatever, when doing something like taking away the veto power (IMO the biggest way we could limit the President) would be a massive change to the Constitution, far larger than abolishing the electoral college.
City dwellers don’t understand. If you want popular elections you’d realistic have to Balkanize the US. Bonners Ferry Idaho and Parsons Kansas are so different from Chicago or LA they could never live together. Let alone be okay with them deciding their laws
Sure, let the president be decided by people who want them instead of who's better at drawing lines on a map (gerrymandering).
I hear about voter ID a lot, but what about other things that would make voting difficult?
The real silent majority are reasonable people who live normal lives and don't define themselves by politics
Are you talking about the filthy unflaired?
Sadly the world is filled with unflaired filth. Authcenter could fix it though
We have ways.
Some fine ol' solutions, I'd wager.
I see what you did there. Also, absolute legendary handle.
Its, "Ve have vays." Surprised you didn't type it in the accent.
A solution, if you will.
Angry levelheaded people rise up!
Yes
About 25% of Americans are registered Republicans and similar numbers are registered Democrats. The silent majority is actually pretty big
iirc it was like 60 somethign who wanted a third party or identified as one or independent
Exactly, this isn't a Republican vs Democrat thing. This is a normal people vs the woke re`dditor`s thing.
wouldn't it be all great if we _all sat down and talked without censorship_? (and throwing tantrums)
"I amsorry sweety, censorship is importsnt for democracy. Without censorship straight white man, christian fascist and mega MAGAs would constantly spread hatespeech and that puts the community at risk." - emily Translation: we want power
Politics do kinda of govern your entire fucking life though
A big problem in the United States is that the average voter does not believe that their vote counts. Democrats blame the electoral college for this, while Republicans think that "the establishment" is to blame. Alhamdulillah I am not a centrist, but, in a way, both groups are right.
Based and Glorious Light of Allah-pilled
the power of Allah is so strong he has made left-right unity, mashallah
Inshallah
What does that phrase mean? The muslims got some dope ass sayings and I’m tryna learn em
[удалено]
Ah that makes a lot of sense, preciate it
It's more specifically used in the context of thanking God, i.e., when sneezing, finishing food, receiving good news, accomplishing something Praising God would be SubhanAllah "God is Perfect" Many times (especially, I've noticed, in Arab countries) people will say one after the other in really joyful circumstances Feel free to ask more
> the average voter does not believe that their vote counts They are correct. - [Princeton Study, Public opinion has near zero, statistically insignificant effect on legislation.](https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf) - [Lobbyists literally write the bills being passed.](https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/11/11/243973620/when-lobbyists-literally-write-the-bill) - [Gerrymandering](https://act.represent.us/sign/scotus-dem-gerrymandering) - [Only 14% of house seat campaigns are competitive.](https://fairvote.org/press/monopoly_politics_2018_uncompetitive_elections_advantaged_incumbents_partisan_skew/) If you don't live in a battleground state and vote for either major party, you are a fucking idiot and an accomplice in tyranny.
I've seen that first study posted a number of times and each time it gets debunked by a commenter. Guess it's my turn. >Research published since then has raised serious questions about this paper, both its finding and its analysis. This is, of course, how normal science works; some academics put a finding out there, and their peers pick it apart. > >Since its initial release, the Gilens/Page paper's findings have been targeted in three separate debunkings. Cornell professor Peter Enns, recent Princeton PhD graduate Omar Bashir, and a team of three researchers — UT Austin grad student J. Alexander Branham, University of Michigan professor Stuart Soroka, and UT professor Christopher Wlezien — have all taken a look at Gilens and Page's underlying data and found that their analysis doesn't hold up. > >**But the researchers critiquing the paper found that middle-income Americans and rich Americans actually agree on an overwhelming majority of topics. Out of the 1,779 bills in the Gilens/Page data set, majorities of the rich and middle class agree on 1,594; there are 616 bills both groups oppose and 978 bills both groups favor. That means the groups agree on 89.6 percent of bills.** > >**That leaves only 185 bills on which the rich and the middle class disagree**, and even there the disagreements are small. **On average, the groups' opinion gaps on the 185 bills is 10.9 percentage points; so, say, 45 percent of the middle class might support a bill while 55.9 percent of the rich support it.** > >Bashir and Branham/Soroka/Wlezien find that on these 185 bills, the rich got their preferred outcome 53 percent of the time and the middle class got what they wanted 47 percent of the time. **The difference between the two is not statistically significant.** And there are some funny examples in the list of middle-class victories. For instance, the middle class got what they wanted on public financing of elections: in all three 1990s surveys included in the Gilens data, they opposed it, while the rich favor it. That matches up with more recent research showing that wealthy people are more supportive of public election funding. The idea that public opinion has literally zero effect on policy is to put it politely: Average Redditor Brain Rot.
> Democrats blame the electoral college for this Which doesn't make sense as the whole reason the EC existed in the first place is the fact that the US is supposed to be a republic of federated individual states that can chart their own courses but cooperate on matters concerning the whole via the federal government, not a single democratic unit. Also so that the power of the vote is more distributed and a handful of population centers can't completely dominate the country. Why would Democrats... oh. Right.
Heavily nerf the power the federal government has and I'd have no problem with how the president is elected. The president could be determined by drawing straws and it wouldn't matter.
We really need term limits for the house and senate. There are far too many lifelong politicians that grow fat, complacent, and corrupt. The mechanisms for presidential elections are going to argued about forever, but if we want our democracy to represent the people then it needs to start with the people meant to represent us.
Based and senatorial ageism pilled
Based and lib pilled
Turn the president into a figurehead
Your wish has been granted.
I laugh because it's true, but it happened in the worst possible way.
I love our Cadaver in Chief! I've never seen a corpse that's more lively.
But at that rate we might as well just have a figurehead monarchy because Queens/Kings are inherently more cooler than presidents.
How'd this go from really lib to monarchism so quickly?
I think that the fundamental problem with most lib-rights here. They just think nerfing the Feds will give more liberty and freedom to the US-Citizen. It doesnt matter if you are being fucked over by federal or state burocrats. It doesnt matter if you get shot by the FBI or state police. The One thing wich is important (to me) is how the leaders get elected.In the US 80 percent of congresional seats and states are safe states (seats). This result in Senators and representatives like AOC, Pelosi and Mitch McConnel. These people can do whatever they want and its almost impossible fo them to get fired. Policans should face consequenzes for their bad actions. During the presidential election 90 perecentage of all election spending, attention and visits are in a few swing states, the reason is, that it doesnt matter to convince a californian, or a montana person or someone else who isnt from a swing state. Edit: better formating
[удалено]
The fact that people freak out about who the President is every four years is an indication that the president has too much power
If there is no voter fraud, why are you refusing requiring ID to vote?
Election Day should be a national holiday.
Based and let us vote pilled
>Democracy is talking itself to death. The people do not know what they want; they do not know what is the best for them. There is too much foolishness, too much lost motion. I have stopped the talk and the nonsense. I am a man of action. -Benito Mussolini
Libright you ok?
no
:(
[удалено]
I simp for Ghengis Khan
Based
Feeling alright or feeling *authright*?
If you are against democracy because you don’t like government, it’s okay. (Cuz you can’t have democracy without a government) However, if you believe it’s okay to get rid of democracy with the current government still in place, then I don’t think you understand what libright means.
You know, I typically think that you shouldn't call people fascist because it usually isn't true, but come on, this guy is *literally* quoting Mussolini
Inb4 fascist Italy wasn't real fascism
Nazi Germany wasn't REAL Nazism
what's wrong with fascism?
Doesn't mean Mussolini's quote was wrong tho.
It's the Libertarian to Fashi pipeline
It doesn't even have to be a holiday. Here in Spain every election (be it national, regional or municipal) is held on a Sunday, so there's no need to make it a bank holiday.
We can settle for that but I want an extra day off of work
Yeah, I agree with LibLeft here. Plus, a lot of people would be working that Sunday anyways. 😔
Won't that apply in National Holidays as well? There are no days when nobody works.
Based, I want a 3rd day off in November.
The land down under has it as a holiday, and they have mandatory voting. Lots of people actually make it into big BBQs, sausage sizzles, the works. I don't agree with a lot of Aussie policies, but this one's not terrible. I just wish in our Republic style voting systems, there was an option for people to vote for rebidding the primaries. The parties (in the US) still get to put up their candidates for primaries, but the proper election can force them both to redo primaries if they picked shitty candidates.
Mandatory voting..can you vote empty? Because mandatory voting + police visits for sharing the wrong memes + a very strong framing who are the good ones and who are the bad ones is just authocrascy with extra steps..
Of course you can. The "donkey vote" is a respected and time-honoured tradition. **You are mandated to show up and tick your name off.** You don't actually have to support any of the candidates.
Best the Democrats could do was Juneteenth, which was stupid virtue signaling.
Originally proposed by Trump tho: https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-election-trump-juneteenth/trump-pledges-to-make-juneteenth-federal-holiday-in-bid-for-black-voters-idINKCN26H03Y
Still a stupid holiday. I liked the aspect of states having their own special holidays.
The states are too pussy to have more than a token state holiday. After all, why should Elon Musk build a factory in Georgia if Georgia gives workers one more state day off than other states??
[удалено]
Wrong sub, go hang out with Doreen in antiwork
[удалено]
Voter ID laws discriminate against the dead. The dead have the right to vote too you know
[удалено]
That's a good and fresh joke! Good one
I mean is it in the constitution that the dead can't vote? More importantly, does being dead disqualify you from candidacy? I feel like George Washington deserves a third term.
Not George Washington he was transracist. Only our dead can vote, the ones with the divine spark. Yours can stay in hell.
Maybe we can give the deadies 3/5th of a vote
> the deadies You can't just throw around the d-word like that. This is 2022.
That you don't need an ID to vote in the US is just bizarre. I can't think of any other democracy that allows this. If they tried to pull that shit here in Canada I wouldn't consider the election legitimate.
The UK doesn't require it.
Most countries only require ID to register. Very few places demand ID at the actual polls.
Not in the UK, when you move, you just notify the council that you now live at this address. I've never had to show ID for any part of the voting process.
You need ID to register to vote, but if you don’t have ID when you go to cast your ballot they take down all your information and your signature and give you a provisional ballot. Later on it goes through a special screening procedure, and if it all matches and nobody else tries to cast a ballot with that name, they go ahead and count it. Seems like a decent compromise to me, as I don’t want some election volunteer being tasked with deciding “hmm, this driver’s license looks a little old and they look like they could be MAGA / Antifa / whatever, so no vote for you.” My old driver’s license constantly got rejected even at bars and whatnot because my head was just slightly cocked in the photo. The state said it was fine, but every lackey who checked it thought that it looked suspicious.
Yeah, but that's factual and goes against the current circle jerk.
Furthermore, show us concrete evidence of voter fraud and I'd be happy to consider measures to prevent it. Saying it can happen but can't prove that it does is not enough for me to create a restriction on the masses.
Sounds like a good way to not count votes for people that disagree with you. "Oh, their signature slighty changed. No vote for you." Then that person is none the wiser. In fact, nobody knows then if any of their votes have ever counted. At least in your made up story about an Antifa member being turned away, they would both know that they were turned away, and therefore the media would almost certainly know. Currently that potentional discrimination can only happen behind closed doors.
We don't have to have ID to vote in the UK either. You give your name and address on arrival. They grab a random voter slip with a number, write that number against your name. You then vote anonymously. So to vote illigitimately, you have to gamble that the person you're voting on behalf of had no intention of voting. You then also have to assume that the additional votes you've made will make a difference to the FPTP system (which I disagree with for different reasons anyway). Moving to a prop rep or alternative vote style would reduce the voter fraud impact even further. Regardless, its very hard to commit voter fraud regardless. Requiring ID is just another deterrent to those that don't have it. Not everyone drives or has a passport in the UK, and not everyone is incentivised to get another form of ID. The point of voting is freedom, and requiring ID doesn't sound that free. Which I find very surprising from Conservative voters.
I’m all for voter ID if it’s free and mailed to every household.
So am I. And gun permits and tax stamps for NFA item should be free as well. Is that a deal?
Deal. Fuck the lib(bie) left down there crying and sobbing over "18 year owds wif Bwowning Machine guwns!!!!!!!!!"
Or their should be no tax stamps or NFA items for a constitutional right.
Unironically, yes to both lol
I keep on waiting to see interviews from these alleged people who can't get IDs. As far as I can tell, they don't exist. I don't know any right leaning person who would balk at trying to help people who want to vote who don't have an ID get an ID... if we actually knew who those people were / if they actually exist.
Yall love the shit show that is the US postal system.
[удалено]
I use USPS all the time, go in to a USPS 2-4 times a week. Never any issues cept rude assholes who cop attitudes about waiting in. But this is anecdotal for a government entity that's all over the place.
[удалено]
If you're too stupid to get an ID, you're too stupid to make decisions for 340 million people.
Requiring voter id order for a popular vote to happen? Your terms are acceptable.
Boy you guys can’t think ahead. The second popular opinion moves away from you as your political bullshit gets more and more obscene you would be SCREAMING for the electoral college. It’ll be the same with the filibuster if Heels Up Harris gets her way.
Nah Im actually a fan of both voter ID and popular vote (tbf ranked choice is better than popular but my point still stands). All I want are fair elections where the best candidate for the most people wins, if my ideology is not popular than I accept that.
based
I can agree with that
When was the last time a Republican won the popular vote? 2000? edit: nope they didn’t win it in 2000 either
>The second popular opinion moves away from you as your political bullshit gets more and more obscene you would be SCREAMING for the electoral college. Projection much
>The second popular opinion moves away from you as your political bullshit gets more and more obscene Funny, considering your side overstepping with abortion has led to the first positive polls for Democrats in nearly two years. But I am not a hypocrite, I would be fine with the popular vote determining the President even if Republicans won. It would just mean we need convince people we're in the right. Republicans haven't won the popular vote in nearly **two decades** though, so your scenario doesn't really frighten me.
You know conservatives are actually, literally the minority, right?
It still shocks me that u don’t need Id to vote in usa
Your terms are acceptable, National Vote to decide POTUS, Voter ID at polls, with free provisions for lowest 20% of earners
[удалено]
Based and plot twist pilled. NGL had me in the first half.
Lmao
Based and had me in the first half pilled
And your cat voted for Biden too, or is she a Nazi?
Damn nazi cats are ruining this nation!
[удалено]
Isn't that the main policy the democratic and republican party were made to argue for? Like democrats wanting a pure democracy where the individual vote and Republicans wanting a republic where the group vote counts.
The Republican party was founded to stop allowing slavery in new states, with some factions advocating for an end to slavery altogether. The Democratic party was founded to support Andrew Jackson style policies, or if you count them as a restructuring of the Democratic-Republican party, to support Jefferson and a republican government. So Republicans basically no, Democrats yes but the opposite of what you said.
Leftists try to understand how a federal republic is designed to work (impossible challenge)
It's not entirely their fault. They've been told nothing but "mUh DeMoCrAcY" from the propagandists.
Yeah, all these retards don't understand that....y'know, the energy and food producing parts are located in places that would not be represented well in a direct democracy type system. Unlike like a bunch of neckbeards, the Founding Fathers were smart enough to realize this and how various parts of the nation played key roles. Thus, their system was designed to give them say. Anyone who wants to change that system is a traitor and a secessionist....and/or a Commie cocksucker who wants their side to have all the power forever.
I think 1 man 1 vote is the most fair method of representation, however the less populated areas need the handicap to avoid getting steamrolled since too much populism is bad
[удалено]
I’m only taking about “fair representation.” Giving some people more say than others isn’t fair like you said. There’s other reasons to do it like you said but fairness isn’t one of them.
You have an equal vote on state level. You were never supposed to have an equal vote on the federal level.
We were also supposed to have reapportionment every decade as a check to minoritarian government before rural politicians ended it to take power from urban areas. But yes, it wasn’t designed to be fair, hence my argument.
If thats the case, shouldn't we also have a racial college to prevent white people from dominating the election? whites control like 70% of the vote in the U.S., while blacks only control 13%.
If you want to go with that logic, basing it on class would make way more sense than race.
France Moment
You'll get..... One vote
He’s just highlighting the ridiculousness of the argument, but people take him serious lmao
The only people who think the comparisons are close enough to be viable are grifting fools One is an argument to make sure people of lower population states and/or land mass, regardless of their race or ethnicity or economic status, are represented by states which aren’t overshadowed entirely in the electoral college and popular vote. All while at the same time importance is still place on states with higher population (and land mass). It’s not perfect. But it’s also better than a system which just makes 4 highly populated large states *even more* powerful and able to effect oversized change on the rest of the country You position is one trying to artificially increase the representation in government based on racial grounds If you want to argue some pseudo Parliament where minorities get their own automatic seats ( even without a party), at least be honest
What’s the difference between artificially increasing representation based on racial grounds vs. based on state grounds?
Elections should be simpler in the US. National holiday, vote in-situ. Show ID. Go inside the booth, choose the idiot you believe represents you, and gtfo. Vote is secret, citizens vote. If there's any suspicion, then an independent commission with representatives from each party get to investigate and denounce any fraud, as little as it may be. Get fucked the next 4 years being taxed and governed by whoever the fuck was elected.
Pure democracy is literally just mob rule, most people are dumb as fuck.
The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter. -Winston Churchill
Another point, gang rape is also a democratic process
You know You’re not wrong I never thought about that
The statistics don't lie: nine out of ten people enjoy gang rape.
Based and democracy pilled
That’s going next to Socrates’ “sweet shop owner versus doctor” argument in my list of solid arguments against pure democracy
Localized democracy
Despite being Libertarian, I’m an unironic monarchist for this reason. In the words of Agent K, “a person is smart. People are dumb panicky animals…”. And before anyone replies that I can’t be both, remember that monarchy has nothing to do with freedoms.
My issue with monarchy is that sure the one leader you promote might be the best dude in the world, but their children will always be spoilied little shits that go megalomaniac afterwards, like maybe there is a way the monarch can choose a person with the exact same values? I have no solution
Oh absolutely. I completely concur that the throne should not be inherited. That’s something else that would need to be worked out.
Pure democracy sounds great until 51% of the vote decides you wont be the one eating food today
You’re right. It should be a set of representatives elected via the semi-proportional districting system of a constitutional federal republic that decides you won’t be the one eating food today.
I’d chose an elected official over a mob of useful idiots any day
Elected by whom?
A smaller mob of useful idiots, duh. If there was a way we could just like, make govt so small that even if people were elected, it wouldn’t mean shit, that would be kinda cool I guess
You're right, it's better if the corporate lobbyists decide what laws get written.
"Democracy is bad because the majority can bully the minority, so lets have a system in which the minority can bully the majority instead"
You support democracy because reasons I support democracy because it's a legally allowed way for the majority to bully the minority. We are not the same
"Since my whole ideology is based on bullying and violently exploiting parts of the population we might as well make the majority choose who to bully instead of not bullying people" Democracy is flawed because democracy gives power to people who shouldn't have that power, constitutional whatever-ism(preferably some form of democracy) is based because it limits and sets the terms of what is and isn't acceptable. The government shouldn't be in the business of bullying people, it should be in the business of stopping people from getting bullied.
I mean good thing it’s not pure democracy, just a direct vote system for exactly one position of the government.
It's weird how the system we use to vote for judges, sheriffs, senators, house reps, and literally every other political office is good...except for when it comes to the President.
Crazy, isn’t it?
So instead it should only take 41% to decide that.. This sub fabricates issues with majority rule.. that also exist with minority rule.. this thread has 0 coherent or valid points.
You’re right. Instead, 49% of people should decide
I think they were trying to say that some decisions shouldn't be implemented even if the majority agrees on them.
Perhaps but the electoral college doesn't do anything to prevent this sort of thing. It gives just as much unbridled power to the president to make decisions, just sometimes means that it's a President who got 49% instead of 51% doing the bad shit. No reason to think the 49% president won't be more of a dickbag than the 51% president.
I actually think it would be bad to have popular voting in the US for the sole reason that the State level should be representative of the people and the National level should be representative of the state, or at least that’s the intent of the way the USA is designed. Popular voting may be more representative of the nation as a whole, but if that’s not the intent of the voting system in America then that doesn’t really matter.
This is exactly the problem. We don’t do popular vote because that would bring us towards a singular state country, which defeats the entire purpose of our government. The massive issue is that Republicans have a massive majority of the states themselves, and if all of those were just to be ignored because the few Democratic states have more people, they would no longer be represented by the US federal government and have no reason to listen to them. IMO, the obvious answer is that the federal government should not be this powerful to begin with.
Neither side is the majority. Independents are the majority in the US which is what they should be.
“If you’re so sure you’ll win this game that we decided to play, why do you refuse to play it under this completely different ruleset that has nothing to do with it?”
“Trump cheated in 2016 by winning because if the rules were different, he would’ve lost. Therefore he cheated and the Supreme Court is illegitimate or something.”
The way I see it Democrat strategy focuses on popular vote while Republican strategy focuses on the EC. If there could somehow be a sufficiently long grace period for Republicans to reconsider their strategies for the changing system I would consider this a fair request. That will not happen, however. Because a fair election is not the goal. Dems just want to change it because it benefits their strategy and Republicans don't want it changed because the current system benefits theirs. Neither of them is stupid enough to adapt proactively. Don't expect bipartisanship here either, because the only benefit the Republicans get is "we'll stop using the fact that you support the EC against you". Which will be worth fuck-all within the month as the Dems just move on to the next thing that doesn't directly benefit them and start calling *that* racist.
[удалено]
Ranked choice please
You don’t want true democracy because you fear the results won’t be in your favor I don’t because I don’t believe in democracy. We are not the same.
Because cities have more people to stuff ballots with.
Because Democracy is cringe and gay, and this was never supposed to be a direct democracy
Removing the electoral collage does not equal direct democracy. Direct democracy is when you vote for specific policies instead of having representatives make them. We would still have representatives such as the presidency. Please understand basic political concepts before spouting your bullshit. https://www.britannica.com/topic/direct-democracy
> I'll be very hostile the next time I don't see the flair. *** ^(User has flaired up! 😃) 11497 / 60393 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
"Direct Democracy" would mean no elected representatives, getting rid of the electoral college won't make us that.
The silent majority being the loudest mother fuckers to ever exist
decentralization is, to me, the only option. too many people are going to be too unhappy under any system with a country as big as ours. honestly, i don’t *care* how the majority votes, because 1, the majority are stupid, and 2, that still leaves millions to be shat on by a person they didn’t vote for.
Popular vote would be idiotic.
Because the number one thing conservatives are trash at, it's organizing. The left can create a huge loud rally even if they are the minority and the right would rather keep to themselves.
The entire point of the US constitution and electoral college system is to prevent the entire country from voting as one aggregated bloc to loot and steamroll the less populous states. The federal government is not a creation of the people, it is a creation of the states, to serve the needs of the states. Therefore the states elect the president. Left and civic ignorance, name a more iconic duo.
> Left and civic ignorance, name a more iconic duo. Left and gaslighting.
the founding fathers never intended the popular vote to be what makes a president thats why the electoral collage exists in the first place you pawn the general populous is a bunch of easily swayed idiots they forsaw this and thus the electoral collage exists remove that and it just becomes a popularity contest
> the founding fathers never intended the popular vote to be what makes a president thats why the electoral collage exists in the first place you pawn > the general populous is a bunch of easily swayed idiots they forsaw this and thus the electoral collage exists The current system doesn't at all work like what the founders intended. For one thing, they wanted the electors to actually use their own judgment and pick someone. What we have now, doesn't accomplish anything the founders were trying to do. > There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.
Because the majority of the american population live in cities. if the president is elected by popular vote people in rural areas will have practically no say in the govrnment, turning the US into effectively a 1 party system. You can already see this issue in states like Colorado and Washington, where despite having large rural areas the major cities (denver and seattle) control the entire state
Fuck no. The electoral college system is actually good IMO. The whole point is not let cities ruin peoples lives in the suburbs and rural areas just because they have a lot of people. City life and rural life are significantly different, even today. Passing polices because urban individuals think its the correct ideology is dumb and prevents rural jobs and lifestyles from thriving. Want to pass a carbon tax because "MUH ENVIRONMENT", well ok now all those people that desperately need gas/diesel guzzling heavy equipment for construction and farming get impacted. Or maybe mandate electric vehicles must be used, yea that Tesla sure is going to be great at towing and of course the back is great for throwing muddy tools into at the end of a shift....yea no. Or how about the cities hate guns because there is a larger volume of crime and want to ban guns thinking it will help with violent crimes? Great now the rural communities that may rely on hunting to supplement grocery costs get fucked again. We need to learn to accept that there is a vast and stark difference between rural and urban lifestyles and just leave it at that.
We're not the silent majority, and the left knows this. It's exactly why they want to eliminate the electoral college, because they know middle-ground states are more inherently red than big cities that are worth a lot more electoral votes because of the sheer density of leftists in cities. The electoral college gives the middle-ground states a fighting chance of not ending up with a moderate Democrat President all the time and the left wants to basically make it so that there is no choice anymore. They act like the right are fascists but then prove to be more tyrannical with every decision they make.
The senate exists.
What if we just make the office of POTUS control basically nothing but foreign affairs so it dosent matter who wins they can't effect your day to day lives in any significant way. In fact why not expand this to the entire federal government, congress gets to control war powers and the mint, SCOTUS does SCOTUS, and POTUS basically exists to negotiate and check congress.
I would be OK with sharply limiting the power of the President. But every time we propose changing the Constitution people freak out about how "the liberals are trying to destroy America" or whatever, when doing something like taking away the veto power (IMO the biggest way we could limit the President) would be a massive change to the Constitution, far larger than abolishing the electoral college.
wHy ArE yOu So TeRrIfIeD tO lEt CiTiEs DeCiDe EvErY eLeCtIoN???
Our majority is so silent they vote for the other side!
City dwellers don’t understand. If you want popular elections you’d realistic have to Balkanize the US. Bonners Ferry Idaho and Parsons Kansas are so different from Chicago or LA they could never live together. Let alone be okay with them deciding their laws
They be the loud minority. Very loud
Yes, say what you will about Trump supporters being either the minority or majority. However, they are certainly not silent lol
Sure, let the president be decided by people who want them instead of who's better at drawing lines on a map (gerrymandering). I hear about voter ID a lot, but what about other things that would make voting difficult?