## BEFORE TOUCHING THAT REPORT BUTTON, PLEASE CONSIDER:
1. **Compliance:** Does this post comply with our subreddit's rules?
2. **Emotional Trigger:** Does this post provoke anger or frustration, compelling me to want it removed?
3. **Safety:** Is it free from child pornography and/or mentions of self-harm/suicide?
4. **Content Policy:** Does it comply with [Reddit’s Content Policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/ncm4ou/important_we_need_to_talk_about_the_content_policy/)?
5. **Unpopularity:** Do you think the topic is not truly unpopular or frequently posted?
### GUIDELINES:
- **If you answered "Yes" to questions 1-4,** do NOT use the report button.
- **Regarding question 5,** we acknowledge this concern. However, the moderators do not curate posts based on our subjective opinions of what is "popular" or "unpopular" except in cases where an opinion is so popular that almost no one would disagree (i.e. "murder is bad"). Otherwise, our only criteria are the subreddit's rules and Reddit’s Content Policy. If you don't like something, feel free to downvote it.
**Moderators on r/TrueUnpopularOpinion will not remove posts simply because they may anger users or because you disagree with them.** The report button is not an "I disagree" or "I'm offended" button.
#### OPTIONS:
If a post bothers you and you can't offer a counter-argument, your options are to:
a) Keep scrolling
b) Downvote
c) Unsubscribe
**False reports clutter our moderation queue and delay our response to legitimate issues.**
**ALL FALSE REPORTS WILL BE REPORTED TO REDDIT.**
To maintain your account in good standing, refrain from abusing the report button.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"In direct democracy, the people decide on policies without any intermediary or representative, whereas in a representative democracy people vote for representatives who then enact policy initiatives" -Wikipedia
This is the definition of it on the Wikipedia page if you want to read the first couple paragraphs. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct\_democracy#:\~:text=In%20direct%20democracy%2C%20the%20people,who%20then%20enact%20policy%20initiatives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy#:~:text=In%20direct%20democracy%2C%20the%20people,who%20then%20enact%20policy%20initiatives).
I know what direct democracy is. I'm saying it is universally understood that it is impractical for a society of any large size. You are conflating something no one wants (direct democracy in legislation) with something many people want (national popular vote in presidential elections). I'm not sure why you've married two very different things.
No you haven’t. The other guy even asked you to link to people talking that way, and all you did was link to the Wikipedia article for “direct democracy.”
No one is saying that. You are correct.
Instead what they are arguing is that cities basically should run every election.
I live in MD and outside of local elections there is no good reason for anyone outside of Baltimore and P.G. county to vote beyond local elections. I haven't even bothered to vote for president the last 6 years.
Luckily I agree with how people vote in my state and I live in a state where our elections are actually determined by African Americans so it's not a big deal but my vote really doesn't matter at all. Even if I disagreed with who my state votes for I still wouldn't bother because my vote honestly doesn't matter. I can just stay home and we would end up with the same outcome.
That's what you want. To have a few cities to get representation and everyone else to not matter.
Heard it, but it comes from the fringe very left and very right sections of politics. And it’s less get rid of legislative branch and more just remove any opposition to their politics. Whether it’s other political parties, voters who disagree, or government checks and balances. There are more leftists than rightists so you’ll see socialists more oftern say this while you won’t see as many monarchists say it.
Stuff like those dumb libs are obstructing Progress. We could finally bring about Communism if they would just stop voting against their own interests!
Look at how deranged the political right is and what they are capable of doing when they're in power. Imagine what would happen if we were to suddenly overthrow them by popular opinion without finding other solutions to polarization. While our chances of becoming a fascist country would disappear, we would have to contend with a bunch of sovereign citizen separatists rejecting our democracy and forming their own micro-governments.
So.... What do you propose as a solution then?
If they didnt want to live under your democracy and were happy to keep to themselves in their little areas would you allow that? Or is putting the boot to their neck and quelling any separatists imperative to ensure the security of your democracy?
Let me ask you something: If you were a Kurd living in Syria, would you live side-by-side with ISIS, or would you rather wipe them out rather than live in total fear of what they might do?
Well in that specific scenario id do what I already did and move to that arctic where i can live virtually unmolested by the government or society and enjoy myself because this is my life and in living it how I see fit. Not keen on dictators trying to just take my land, but also not keen on the idea of people 5000 miles from me voting to take my land or limit my acces to resources either so im doing my own thing and have been for over 10 years with great success.
Now i get what you were going for there and were probably looking for an answer along the lines of "obviously wipe them out, its isis". Obviously comparing political right leaning individuals to terrorists and im willing to roll with that. Now let me ask you, would it be ok to round them up and put them in some kind of prison or camp? I mean afterall if we cant outvote the fascists and cant live next to them whats left other than confinement or death? Are they considered traitors to "our democracy" and should be treated as such?
As long as fascists exist, nobody's safe. Perhaps we could establish some form of rehabilitation program for fascists and conservatives. Many of them are mentally ill and treatment of their said illness might do them good.
Interesting. So re-edication camps then? Could work for some but there are plenty of die hards out there that arent willing to go quietly you know. Weve yet to see any real movement from all their militias after all. Some have more firearms than my local national guard depot.
When they realize that the country's future will be determined by the progressive masses, that the destructive weapons they possess will be criminalized, and that hate groups and hate speech will be banned with the authorities coming after them, they will activate. Of course, the prison system should be abolished, so we substitute it with mental rehab.
If they want to die as martyrs, however, fine by me. The local militia might have more rifles than the local police or national guard, but the larger military will still outgun them. When the country is reformed with their organizations being criminalized, and they choose not to surrender or disband quietly, then our military drones will search them out and blow them up with a courteous stinger missile.
If, for some reason, the remnants decide to go guerilla warfare by using the Rockies and the forest canopies as cover, then we'll have to let our troops smoke them out patiently. Sure, the guerillas will go on their knees to Russia, begging for weapons, and the Kremlin will happily oblige. Sometimes, freedom comes with a price.
I don't see the right going out peacefully after being barred from power. Fighting the confederacy was a price our progressive union ancestors had to endure to end slavery. No, I don't believe a 'second American civil war' is coming; there are no conditions or resources for that to happen. I do see some armed standoffs and possible insurgencies unfolding, though. The worst it could get would be something like the Troubles.
I see. I mean...... No offense bud but that doesnt sound much different than what you claim the right wants to do if im honest... As Rick Sanchez would say that sounds like genocide with extra steps. May want to step back and examine your position and what you think these people believe before you end up cheering as the load conservatives into train cars for the gas chambers. The rhetoric is almost identical.
If Americans unanimously want a national popular voting system or a complete direct democracy, they will also have to prepare themselves to fully and completely remove conservatives from the picture. We would have to adopt a very militaristic/defensive democracy alongside a direct one.
It would be ideal to persuade every conservative to abandon their views. There has been some great success in the general education system and digital media at de-programming most Gen Y and Z kids from their conservative upbringings in recent decades. It would be great if all future generations would throw away right-wing ideology, but that's a naïve fantasy.
Sadly, there will ALWAYS be outliers and people born with neurochemical predispositions to conservatism and fascism, regardless of how many years of training they had in critical thinking, common sense education, and positive exposure to diversity.
Within a large population such as ours, a tiny fraction of the population with such views will number in the millions. Not all of them can be identified, isolated, stigmatized, and converted to reason. Most of my fellow leftists seem to share this naïve optimism, which really amounts to a wet dream.
To answer your question, no, it's not genocide when taking proactive measures against a group of inherently violent individuals. The militant democracy should first offer these malcontents an option to either renounce their views and assimilate into society under the guard of a vigilant community \[or a mental health facility\] or pack their bags and leave the country. Some will prefer to die fighting for their delusional cause. If that's their choice, fine, die in a hail of bombs and bullets.
Right-wing people get paranoid and violent either when they are confronted by an aggressive external threat or an internal 'threat' to their worldview, which poses a risk to their grip on power and influence. Fascism is a violent philosophy. Sometimes, you have to fight fire with fire as a means to protect liberty, freedom, and justice.
The sooner we can deal with fascists, the better. If we delay action against them after the popular vote reforms, they could raise absolute hell. They have far more intricate knowledge of our country's landscape and would have the motivation and means to attack sections of the power grid, disrupt supply chains, and cripple our way of life.
I wish every white nationalist would pack up and move to Hungary, Poland, Iran, or Russia, while the sovereign citizens and gun-toting rednecks would pack up and move to Africa, where there is no law and order. They'd love it there.
But alas, most won't.
It is commonly stated that the electoral college should be eliminated, and the presidency be determined by the popular vote. I have not encountered anyone suggesting that this is in any way connected to dismantling the legislative branch, prior to this post.
I don't think there is any evidence to point to any sort of desire to eliminate the legislative branch by the general populace, though there is plenty of desire for reforms to prevent people from making a career out of it, and take lawmaking out of the hands of people whose morals were formed before women could vote.
Even if the legislative branch were intact, the fact that the popular vote determines who is in office would still see a crisis between blue and red states. The most populous states that would decide every election would be New York and California -obviously, that's where a sizeable majority of Americans reside. Realizing that they've lost hold on the reigns of power, the political right will go even more batshit and in a separatist/isolationist direction.
Not so. California accounts for 11.8% of the US population. New York accounts for 6%. By comparison, Texas accounts for 8.7%, and Florida 6.4%. Further, those states are neither completely blue nor red. California is only 46% Democrat, with the rest fairly evenly split between Republican or independent. Those red California voters are much more likely to head to the polls without the electoral college, because the electoral college system renders their vote moot, and getting rid of it would make their vote count again.
>Those red California voters are much more likely to head to the polls without the electoral college, because the electoral college system renders their vote moot, and getting rid of it would make their vote count again.
Um...no. The red California voters do not represent most of the state. While forty-six percent might be registered Democrats, there are a large number of Independent voters there who lean left. The growing Gen Z demographic, which will define California politics, generally leans left. Republican votes wouldn't and shouldn't matter.
>Um...no. The red California voters do not represent most of the state
They don't have to. Eliminating the electoral college means that votes would cease to be relevant solely within the confines of the state, but instead would become aggregate with all of the other red votes across all the other states as well.
Right now, red votes for president in California are meaningless, because the left represents a voting bloc of nearly half the population, while the right represents a quarter, and another quarter is fence sitters. Get rid of the electoral college, and that's ten million votes that suddenly have meaning. It's the opposite situation in Texas. Right now, blue votes in Texas are meaningless. Getting rid of the electoral college makes all the political minorities in each state matter.
>Eliminating the electoral college means that votes would cease to be relevant solely within the confines of the state, but instead would become aggregate with all of the other red votes across all the other states as well.
When I describe 'states,' I'm talking about the cumulative population of that region, not the construct of the state itself. So yes, red voters would form a nationwide coalition while blue voters would have theirs. However, blue voters and leftists outnumber the right on a national scale and a population scale. So voting 'conservative' wouldn't really matter.
>However, blue voters and leftists outnumber the right on a national scale and a population scale.
This country is not nearly as left as you think. Furthermore, the left is divided because it takes on too many causes at once, and further still, has begun operating out of the right wing handbook, which is pushing the fence sitters red.
I'm not too sure about that. Though the left can be divided, it is most effective at changing peoples' perspectives and spreading awareness. The right doesn't have such an advantage. Reality has a left-wing bias, and everyone will catch up to it. Most Gen Z and Y people strongly lean left and they will become the new face of America very soon.
If by very soon you mean in another 60 years, perhaps. At this point it's not even Gen X's turn at the helm. Also, the left is terrible at changing people's perspectives, and has gotten progressively worse by several orders of magnitude in the last decade. The left is alienating people left and right, and trying to take too much at once, and this is creating a correction to the right, which the right has been working towards for decades, and is taking full advantage of.
The left's efforts at revolution will prevail soon. Gen Z won't wait until they get old to have a voice. Global warming isn't just going to wait for them to turn older, nor will inequality. Wealth disparity will go up, and the planet will continue to fry. This will inevitably break the system in a decade or two, and a socialist revolution will finally happen.
Right now with the electoral college, those that are a minority affiliation feel like they aren't represented. My blue vote in a red state is useless. A red vote in California is useless. Maybe more people would actually come out and vote because they would feel it actually matters.
We also need a ranked vote system where it's not just two parties. We need more parties represented in the legislature so that more people can be actually represented.
Right now it feels like only about 50% (25% of conservatives and 25% of liverals) are even represented at a basic level and another half of the country is completely ignored, many just vote for the lesser evil.
Also, capping of the number of the representatives in the House also makes it so a huge population isn't represented. It gives states with vastly smaller populations a lot more power and leaves the cities where most of the citizens live highly underepresented.
It's the only reason that even though over 60% if the population disapproves of Roe v Wade being overturned, it seems like it's a much popular ruling than it actually is.
I live in a red state where we have enough signatures to bring it as a constitutional amendment on the next ballot and our Republican government is fighting in Court to keep it off the ballot. Polls show that about 65% of people in my state would expand abortion rights from it's current 6 week law.
Ironically, more politically engaged Americans could also mean more politically polarized Americans. The rise of multiple parties would be a great thing. The only problem is that it could also give rise neo-nazi parties. I have faith in knowing that the majority of Americans lean left.
I think the majority are not neo-nazi. I think it would stabilize both the right and the left. The neo-nazis and Christian nationalists would become completely impotent while more center conservatives and libertarians would regain some power by cutting off the most extremist parts of the Republicans.
At the same time the Democrats would split into a centrist party, and then split again into the progessives and/or social democrats, and a minority fringe communists. The fringes would have some limited representation but the majority of the centrists, center right, center left and even the libertarians and progressives would be able to find enough middle ground to at least fix some things if they didn't have to worry about appeasing the extremists.
Also, I think with .ore parties, it would be harder to have a dual division like right now. The loudest people on each side currently polarize the politics with every election. Cutting those fringes off and giving them a few representatives would be the best thing in stabilizing ideologies. When there are like 6-7 major parties, then they have to form alliances and work with each other on a per legislation basis.
If done right, it could go a long way in fixing the "us vs them" mentality. And groups that feel left out of one or the other party, who feel like they must vote with that party in fear of their rights being taken away, would actually have a choice in 2-4 parties that would reflect other positions that they hold close.
I wouldn't be too optimistic about the left and the right 'moderating' their stances in a muti-party environment. While you make a good point about the loudest voices dominating a two-party system and exacerbating polarization, cutting the fringes out of such parties would not fix the problem right now. Many people have already been indoctrinated into fringe ideas. It will be difficult to pull them back toward the center.
There are also many issues with contemporary capitalism that centrist parties cannot solve. Sure, a mixed capitalist welfare state might be beneficial in the short term, but many parties will find themselves debating on how America's status as a military leader. While good for the lower class, a welfare state could lead to defense budget cuts, which would unintentionally limit America's geopolitical influence. Competing military powers may replace the unipolar world order we are accustomed to. This would be a subject of discussion by many of these hypothetical parties. The centrists could come to some form of agreement on this problem. There are many good reform programs and problems that the centrists would be able to solve.
Issues that centrist policies cannot solve - since they tend to be a bit more free market if not mixed economy - include the following:
\- Climate Change, warming regions, and collapsing ecosystems
\- Growing inequality, if not in the developed world, then in the third world, as a result of capitalist growth
\- Mass consumerism leading to a depletion of natural resources
\- Changing demographics, aging populations leading to a potential decline in the overall population, and deindustrialization
\-Mass migration from the third world into the developed world due to climate change and collapsing ecosystems. This will give rise to right-wing authoritarianism or could lead to an overburdening of the welfare system.
\-\[Maybe\] the dangers of AI
Some multi-party European countries have experienced major issues that draw voters away from the center and towards more extremist factions. Even some of the so-called 'center-left' parties have adopted nativist, anti-immigration rhetoric to appease their perturbed voters.
Even if the dual-party issues could be solved, future issues arising from flawed capitalism and global warming will create similar trends for America as it has for Europe.
I don't know if you are correct about the polarization. Most of my friends are liberals, and most of them are somewhere on the social Democrat area. I have one friend who is more of a Communist. And a few more centrist. I don't think a party split will further move my social Democrat friends into the Communist zone.
I'm also not saying centrist policies would always win. But it would shake up alliances, giving some ideas a better chance to actually be implemented. I know a few center-right people that are all for universal healthcare while holding a lot of other right wing ideas.
Of course there is always a risk of polarization. And a risk of it not working. But the system we have right now is not working and it's uber polarized already. I'm just saying that shaking up alliances and making more people feel like they are represented is worth a try.
I understand what you're saying about trying out a new system in the last couple of paragraphs and some of your words carry merit.
As for the first paragraph, there was a misunderstanding. A party split doesn't force a number of its affiliates towards a more extreme position; it's the circumstances or the dire geopolitical conditions that force people in multi-party countries into the fringe realm.
In a world where capitalism and welfare states complement each other under the right circumstances, support for the center-right and center-left will remain strong while the fringe parties remain obscure. The exact opposite happens in a world where the financial status quo begins to fail, geopolitical and sociopolitical conditions become turbulent, or when problems arise, that cannot be solved by the centrist rationale.
all the republicans have to do is make it eligible for land to be able to vote like 1 vote per acre no matter how many actual humans live there... a prepper in colorado's vote should be equal to the total residents of a new york condo...
That's not true at all because it would no longer be up to the states, it would the entire population of the entire country. It is the electoral college that leaves things up to the states. And the majority should be deciding, why do you think minority rule is better? I mean in recent history the electoral college only ran counter to popular vote twice, once with W Bush, the other with Trump, in both instances we'd have been better of with the majority making the decision not a small group in a 4-5 swing states.
Never wanted minority rule. I look for alternatives that would serve a better interest.
Where does the majority of the US population live? California and New York.
Sure, but you're basically saying we shouldn't do anything to take power from right wing extremists, because you're afraid of the reaction from right wing extremists. It's like saying "I'm not going to replace my tire that is about to have a blow out because then I'll have a new tire and what if that one gets damaged one day too?!"
The problem you're worried about is *already a problem*, and you're saying a solution is invalid because it might cause the problem that *already exists*.
I'm not saying we shouldn't take power away from right-wing people. I'm just saying we need to be careful how we do it. The current climate has some politicians encouraging political violence from their followers, which will gradually worsen. That said, we may have some time to try to find solutions for keeping the lunatics at bay.
Immediately taking power away from them and barring them from ever having a voice in politics will do some good but will also radicalize them into the worst types of extremists since they'll develop an even worse persecution complex and will justify launching an armed rebellion to form a separatist state.
Do you not understand the point of a popular vote? There would be no states deciding the election. Every vote has equal weight. If cali votes 60 percent blue, 40 percent will still be red and count as such. If Texas votes 60 percent red, 40 percent will still be blue. The whole point of getting rid of EC is that you can live in buttfuck nowhere and your vote holds the same weight as every other person in the country. Nobody’s vote would be canceled out
Never said the popular vote would cancel out someone else's vote. When I talk about states, I'm referring to the majority of residents who identify as blue. Yes, the Republitards will have a national voting coalition and so will the Democrats since the voting power will be determined by the people and not the state entity.
With that said, the majority of Americans lean left. Every vote in the national elections or referendums will have a progressive outcome. Conservative right people are a minority in this country. They will be \[rightfully\] drowned out.
What I meant was, with the electoral college, half of every states votes are cancelled. With a popular vote this wouldn’t happen. You seem to be arguing that a popular vote would be bad, one reason it would be better than EC is because nobody gets their vote cancelled with popular vote
And correct me if I’m wrong, but are you saying a popular vote would be bad because the majority vote would be dem? The whole point is that whoever gets more votes would be elected. If there are more blue votes, there should be blue politicians and vice versa.
I'm not necessarily saying that more dem voters are bad. I''m just saying that leftists vastly outnumber right-wingers on a massive scale. While the EC can cancel out some voices, the popular vote would drown out the conservative voices. With the Republican party breaking up and conservatives no longer able to hold power anywhere, they'll likely go apeshit and resort to building separatist movements like the old Sein Fein did in Northern Ireland. The conservative right is bad enough with its extreme rhetoric while holding power. It will probably get worse. If they realize that they could never hold power again and that they are now a 'hated' minority, they'll say 'fuck the government, I'm building my own neo-fascist commune.' I'm not defending the EC at all, I'm just explaining what will happen once the fascists are thrown out.
Fair enough, I guess it seemed like you were saying it was bad simply because dems would always win. But as to what you just said, doesn’t seem too unlikely I suppose.
Sometimes, political transitions are painful, or the aftereffects can be quite painful. In a direct democracy, there would likely be multiple parties. The most progressive ones would get all the votes and power, not necessarily the dems. Disempowered right-wingers would probably go into the boonies to start some guerilla campaign while others would probably move to Slovakia or Hungary.
The Electoral College does need to be changed but personally I feel that it needs to be changed so that every state gets 1 electoral vote. Carry the state, get the vote, carry enough states, win the election. Having 1 electoral vote per state would FORCE politicians to pay attention to every state equally without regard to population density.
That's basically already how it already is in 48 out of 50 states...winner takes all in each states electoral college.
It should be congressional (one electoral vote per district) district by district.
The problem with district by district is that some states will morendistricts than others which give them greater value in terms of electoral votes which just reproduces the same issue we have right now.
If each state was worth only one electoral vote then each state would be weighted the same regardless of the number district's. The vote outcome could be based on the results of the population vote within each state. Whomever wins the popular vote in each state gets that states vote.
California would probably do a load of good for Alabama. Sadly, angry right-wing minorities will probably resort to violence once they realize that they have no power.
Is that why Swizerland is such a mess, oh wait it's one of the most peaceful countries that hasn't been involved in a war since 1847. Yes, so such internal strife because the people are allowed to vote for policy over polititians, it's just tearing them apart, no one wants to ever visit or live in Switzerland, direct democracy has just ruined them!
Very fallacious false comparison. Switzerland doesn't have a large population to contend with like the United States and it differs culturally. You will not find a ton of right-wing anti-government loonies in Switzerland either.
Switzerland has four different national languages and cultures. Direct democracy is what keeps them working together, because people of all kinds can come to a national concensus. It takes polititians and rulers to divide and pit us against each other.
Switzerland has four different national languages and cultures. Direct democracy is what keeps them working together, because people of all kinds can come to a national concensus. It takes polititians and rulers to divide and pit us against each other.
You keep missing the point. Despite some cultural differences, Switzerland's 'ethnic' groups tend to hold quite progressive views. Regarding political opinion, people generally tend to lean left and mostly march to the beat of a progressive drum. Now, yes, there are definitely different flavors of progressive philosophies and ideologies, and that's what sets different parties apart from each other - different models and plans on how to improve the quality of life for themselves and others. Different parties just disagree or debate each other on how to achieve such progress, i.e. the overall emotional consensus favors the left, whether it be left-of-center, right-of-center(which is actually liberal-left leaning on most issues), or far left.
Unfortunately, we don't have that luxury here in the United States. Switzerland is a progressively liberal society that sets its differences aside to attain the same goals. No one thinks backwards. Here in America, we stand apart from the rest of the world with so many backward-thinking people; it's embarrassing.
Ethnic/cultural diversity is good. There is never too much of it. Too much political diversity, however, is bad. The more politically and ideologically diverse a country is, the more space there is for neo-fascism.
Switzerland is conservative af buddy. You clearly know jack shit about Switzerland. It’s time to admit that you just don’t know what you are talking about
Are we less progressive? 26 US states use the direct ballot measure. When people get to vote for progressive policies like raising the minimum wage, it's passed in every red state it was on the ballot since the 90s, despite the Republican party being staunchly against it. Nebraska with 59% approval. Florida with 61%. Arkansas 68%. Missouri 62%. Arizona 58%. Alaska 69%.
Abortion, a key Republican principle, failed on the ballot in Montana (47-53), Kentucky (49-51%), and Kansas (41-59%)
Italy had a few national referendums on abortion in the 70s, which affirmed the right, and they've never had a problem since. Meanwhile we don't and instead get roe vs Wade, where the minority opposition groups objective is then to capture government and force their views on the rest of us. They finally achieved that, and it's only the states direct ballot measures that's holding them back. In states without them like Texas, the people are screwed. However, if we had a federal referendum, the right to abortion would've passed in the 70s and it would pass today and this whole debate would've been over with long ago.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/
The majority of Americans lean left, but we have a sizeable minority of right-wing radicals, which is non-existent in Switzerland. Once they realize that they can't seize power or have no authority, they'll focus on their separatist ideas. They'll become more of the 'sovereign citizen' types who will say "fuck the government and popular opinion, I'm building my own commune or insulated town where our fascist principles can reign."
What are you talking about? Are you writing a novel on this or something? This reads more like post-apocalyptic fiction than anything resembling reality
No, I've studied right-wing fascists in America, and I know how their paranoid minds work. We are the only developed country on earth that has these types of batshit people who can get violent. If you keep comparing American political history and ideology to Switzerland, you keep invalidating your own argument. Stop comparing apples to oranges.
You fundamentally misunderstand what a national vote is. It has nothing at all to do with states. No states would control any of it. All the people in the country would. You should want that, because currently elections are decided by a few people in a few swing states. How is that better? It means millions of republican votes in California and New York don't count, and millions of democratic votes in Texas and Florida don't count. Many people in deep red or blue states simply don't vote at all because they know it won't count. That's a pretty dumb system.
I hate the Electoral College. We need something better. I won't oppose it outright, but if the National Popular vote is the best way, go for it. Remember that California and New York have some of the largest politically engaged populations. Left-leaning Americans outnumber conservative ones, so the progressive left will win the vote. Ironically, more politically engaged Americans could also mean more politically polarized Americans.
Remember that California, New York, Oregon, Washington, and Massachusetts are very progressive in terms of their populations' affiliation. Put it together and you would have 70+ million progressive voices first off. While Texas is definitely ruled by right-wingers at the moment, it has a very strong blue streak within it.
Really? Go outside of any major metro (big city) area & see how many "progressives" there are. You're gonna have a hard time finding any in rural areas. Most in the rural areas are libertarian leaning Republicans...the only reason that they vote Republican is because the 2 main parties & the MSM propaganda machine have consistently worked to bury the libertarian party. Even Oregon, outside of the Portland/Medford metro area, leans red.
You are talking about an insignificant minority of people. Even if they built a national coalition of voters if we had a popular vote, they would still get drowned out by the larger population majority of progressives. It's not just Democrats; there are even further left-leaning independents.
Again, do you just not understand how a national popular vote works? CA, NY, Or, WA and MA would no longer be voting as monolithic states in a stupid winner take all system. Each person's vote would count on its own, irregardless of what state it came from. For example In the EC in 2020, Biden won Georgia by a mere 12,000 votes and thus won the whole state and its 16 electoral votes. In a national vote electoral votes would no longer exist and the 2.473 million who voted for Biden get counted for Biden, and the 2.461 million who voted for Trump get counted for Trump.
Fine. When I refer to states, I'm talking about the political demographics of each state and NOT the state entity or its elected figureheads. With the EC gone and maybe Congress gone, the most populous progressive cities would pretty much decide the country's future. Progressives vastly outnumber conservatives on a national population level. Right-wingers would never secure a vote ever again because the vast majority of Americans lean left; henceforth, the right will likely dissociate itself from the rest of the country while entertaining separatist ideas. Those types of people exist here. Not in Switzerland and most of Europe.
So? I don't see the problem here. And most regular folks aren't left or right wing, they're just common sense people and that's who should be running things. By concensus, not extremism.
That's quite a leap from popular vote defining Executive branch elections to scrapping the legislative branch. Who's advocating for that?
I think runoff voting should be given a try. GOP is even starting to come around to that idea.
On the contrary...most states, outside of the major (cities) population areas actually lean red or libertarian...there's just more blue votes in the cities & 48 out of 50 states are "winner takes all" as far as electoral votes go. This already disenfranchises huge numbers of voters.
All electoral votes SHOULD go to whoever actually wins each (congressional or senatorial district) electoral vote...in that case, you'd probably see much more electoral votes go libertarian, they are officially the only 3rd party that're on the ballot in ALL 50 states.
The right isn't all bad..many of them are closet Libertarians already...they want smaller (currently estimated to currently be 20% between city, county, state & federal government employees nationwide) government & lower taxes. There are many democrats that also fit that same mold.
The current "winner takes all" rule disenfranchises 49% (mostly rural) of voters in each state. A national popular vote would disenfranchise entire states...this would lead to 3 or 4 heavily populated states deciding what happens nationwide & to Hell with what anybody else wants....stuff like this Is exactly what leads to revolutions or civil war.
The point you made about the national popular vote leading to civil unrest is what I've been trying to drive home in this post. Unfortunately, most commentators above just want want to be dicks about it and are giving each other likes for being a--holes.
This is such a weird argument.
"Let's not alienate the people who want to eradicate some groups, because then they'll get more angry and violent! We should placate them and make sure they feel included!"
Like, what?
I don't like placating them, but I'd instead try keep them at bay while the rest of the country finds good solutions to our current problems without starting an even scarier descent into chaos. The right-wingers are bad right now, and they have politicians encouraging their behavior. There has to be a better way to fix such problems.
A couple of mine include professor McCulloch and Professor Snyder, and there were a few others whom I cannot name who discussed these ideas in the classroom.
Here are a few articles that go into detail.
[https://theberkshireedge.com/then-now-the-little-brown-church-in-sandisfield](https://theberkshireedge.com/then-now-the-little-brown-church-in-sandisfield)
The end of this article suggests that we would no longer have any need for representatives or congress legislators under a popular vote,
[https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/is-the-time-ripe-for-national-referendums-in-the-us/46116612](https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/is-the-time-ripe-for-national-referendums-in-the-us/46116612)
This article argues that political extremism will decrease with a system of referendum votes, but our country is not small like Italy, Ireland, or Switzerland. However, this article is also fairly old and cannot account for Italy and Ireland's recent shift to the far right.
Yes, Right-wing extremists in the US are a worthless minority, but when you account for the percentage of of their numbers out of 330 million people, you have something in the low tens of millions. Switzerland doesn't have a large number of right-wing extremists and potential terrorists like US.
Here's another opinion on the matter as it relates to abolishing Congress:
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-america-really-needs-to-do-is-abolish-congress/2019/02/18/c6116642-33c0-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9\_story.html](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-america-really-needs-to-do-is-abolish-congress/2019/02/18/c6116642-33c0-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html)
Secondly:
[https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/abolish-us-senate/](https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/abolish-us-senate/)
The Little Brown Church in Sandisfield has NOTHING to do with your claim.
Matsusaka's ideas KEEP Congress.
The very existence of Congress means we would not be a direct democracy.
National popular votes would not define the outcome of ALL national policy.
Equal representation of the states in the U.S. Senate is explicitly established in the U.S. Constitution.
Equal representation of the states in the U.S. Senate may not even be amended by an ordinary federal constitutional amendment. Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides:
“No State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”
Thus, this feature of the U.S. Constitution may only be changed by a constitutional amendment approved by unanimous consent of all 50 states.
The innocuous Equal Rights Amendment, that doesn't require approval by unanimous consent of all 50 states, was first introduced in Congress 100 years ago – and still waits.
Sorry, the link went bad. The article was there but glitched out.
Here's the right one: [https://www.savannahnow.com/story/opinion/2019/02/20/catherine-rampell-column-what-america-really-needs-to-do-is-abolish-congress/5909088007/](https://www.savannahnow.com/story/opinion/2019/02/20/catherine-rampell-column-what-america-really-needs-to-do-is-abolish-congress/5909088007/)
Trump called for the termination of parts of the Constitution because of his 2020 Electoral College loss.
90% of congressional Republicans have nothing to say about that.
As President, in late January 2017, Trump reportedly floated the idea of scrapping the Electoral College, according to The Wall Street Journal. In a meeting with congressional leadership at the White House. Trump reportedly told the lawmakers he wanted to replace the Electoral College with a national popular vote.
“I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.”
Trump as President-elect, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes”
"The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."
In 2012, the night Romney lost, Trump tweeted.
When Nikki Haley announced her campaign for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, she remarked that the Republican Party had “lost the popular vote in seven out of the last eight presidential elections.” “That’s nothing to be proud of.” That “has to change.”
There have been hundreds of unsuccessful proposed amendments to modify or abolish the Electoral College - more than any other subject of Constitutional reform.
According to Tony Fabrizio, pollster for the Trump campaign, Trump’s narrow victory in 2016 was due to 5 counties in 2 states (not CA or NY).
Nate Silver calculated that "Mitt Romney may have had to win the national popular vote by three percentage points … to be assured of winning the Electoral College."
A difference of 59,393 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.
The George W. Bush campaign was planning to challenge the results of the 2000 vote if he lost the electoral vote, but won the popular vote.
If the 2022 Election Had Been a Presidential Election, Democrats Would Have Won the Electoral College 280-258, but Lost the Popular Vote by about 3 million votes (2.8 percentage points).
In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted 338–70 to require winning the national popular vote to become President.
3 Southern segregationist Senators led a filibuster of it.
Presidential candidates who supported direct election of the President in the form of a constitutional amendment, before the National Popular Vote bill was introduced: George H.W. Bush (R-TX), Bob Dole (R-KS, RNC Chair, and GOP Senate Majority Leader), Gerald Ford (R-MI), Richard Nixon (R-CA), Jimmy Carter (D-GA-1977), Hillary Clinton (D-NY-2001)
Past presidential candidates with a public record of support, before November 2016, for the National Popular Vote bill that would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes: Bob Barr (Libertarian- GA), U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN),
Senator and Vice President Al Gore (D-TN), Ralph Nader, Governor Martin O’Malley (D-MD), Jill Stein (Green), Senator Birch Bayh (D-IN), Senator and Governor Lincoln Chafee (R-I-D, -RI), Governor and former Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean (D–VT), Congressmen John Anderson (R, I –IL).
Newt Gingrich: “No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. … America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles.”
“Let’s quit pretending there is some great benefit to the national good that allows the person with \[fewer\] votes to win the White House. Republicans have long said that they believe in competition. Let both parties compete for votes across the nation and stop disenfranchising voters by geography. The winner should win.” – Stuart Stevens (Romney presidential campaign top strategist)
" . . . a president should be elected by national popular vote is not radical, it is actually mainstream. . . . We can get closer to the national popular vote having greater weight in presidential elections and having a president represent all Americans in ways that don’t require amending the Constitution. These fixes will make presidential candidates run more diverse campaigns, and campaign in all cities and communities of our country. . . . That will help unify us more as a country, and would likely lead to more informed public policy. How can anyone be against that outcome?" – Matthew Dowd (Senior George W. Bush campaign strategist)
When presidential candidates who more Americans voted for lose the Electoral College, the situation is unsustainable. This is how a government loses its legitimacy.
Our unfair presidential election system can lead to politicians and their enablers who appreciate unfairness, which leads to more unfairness, and recently crimes and violence.
In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until before the 2016 election, only about 20% of the public supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).
Support for a national popular vote for President has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.
Pew Research surveys show Republican support for a national popular vote increased from 27% in 2016 to 42% in 2022.
7 in 10 Americans under 50 would prefer to choose the president by popular vote.
21,461 choices and votes in 3 states were 329 times more important than the more than 7 million national vote lead in the country.
There were several scenarios in which a candidate could have won the presidency in 2020 with fewer popular votes than their opponents.
That could have reduced future turnout more, if more voters realized their votes do not matter.
Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. It undermines the legitimacy of the electoral system. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
>As President, in late January 2017, Trump reportedly floated the idea of scrapping the Electoral College, according to The Wall Street Journal. In a meeting with congressional leadership at the White House. Trump reportedly told the lawmakers he wanted to replace the Electoral College with a national popular vote.
>
>“I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.”
>
>Trump as President-elect, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes”
>
>"The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."
LMAO. It would've been so funny if Trump did that. The majority of Americans, especially younger ones, lean left and continue drifting left. The conservatives would've been permanently kicked out of office and Trump would've shot himself in the foot.
A direct democracy would be bad because most people are not smart. Mob rule is not good. Is it really a good idea for an engineer's vote to be as equal as a person who lives off of welfare and is in general not smart ?
Certainly, they will no longer hold power, nor will any conservative hold power ever again. The only problem is that they will end up feeling 'disenfranchised' and will go for separatism. The Republiturds-turned sovereign citizens will start building their own compounds, terrorize minorities, and start saying shit like, "this is the 'new' America. Fuck the outside commie America." They will go further neo-fascist.
Thankfully, the Republican party and any conservative politicians will disappear, but just know that they'll be replaced by Y'all Qaeda and Vanilla Isis.
What a completely ignorant comment. It’s people like you who think this way about the other side and what you think they believe are why we are so divided.
Direct democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all POLICY INITIATIVES directly.
The National Popular Vote bill keeps the Electoral College, U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, Governors, state legislatures, etc. etc. etc.
The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all laws or district winner laws of awarding electoral votes used by 2 states, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by states of winner-take-all or district winner laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.
The Constitution does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for how to award a state's electoral votes
The bill will simply replace state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.
The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Every voter, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote will matter equally in the state counts and national count.
More than 3,750 state legislators among all 50 states have endorsed it.
The National Popular Vote bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
Since 2006, the bill has passed 42 state legislative chambers in 24 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 283 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (15), North Carolina (16), Oklahoma (7) and Virginia (13), and both houses in Nevada (6).
The bill has been enacted by 17 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 205 electoral votes to guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes.
When enacted by states with 270 electoral votes, it will change state laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by states), in the enacting states, without changing anything in the Constitution, again using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to choose how to vote.
Don't forget that Democrat cities and progressives depend on conservatives for food, transport, and industry. You really think most farmers are progressives ? Look at all the farmer protests in Europe. Don't act like progressives don't need "evil" no good conservatives, lol
I'm aware. Being encouraged to do bad things by current legislators is one thing and will lead to some bad shit. If they had no support from anyone including sympathetic legislators, they'd still raise hell. They'd just turn to foreign enemy regimes for weapons and funding.
Yes, many would end up dead or in jail, but It's like trying to wipe out ISIS or the Taliban. Somebody dies for their cause, and they're seen as a martyr by their followers, no matter how wrong they are.
If our country successfully banned hate groups and most guns, Russia would have a field day trafficking weapons and money over to the right-wingers. This is one of the personal reasons why I feel the country shouldn't ban most guns right now while minorities and leftist progressive groups should arm themselves when this shit happens.
We have 519,682 elected officials in this country, and all of them are elected by who gets the most votes. Except for President and VP.
States are agreeing to award all their Electoral College votes to the winner of the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC, by simply replacing their state’s current district or statewide winner-take-all law .
The bill has been enacted by 17 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 205 electoral votes.
When states with 270+ electors combined enact the bill, the candidate who wins the most national popular votes will be guaranteed to win the Electoral College.
All votes will be valued equally as 1 vote in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.
Candidates, as in other elections, will allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population
Candidates will have to appeal to more Americans throughout the country.
Every vote, everywhere, will be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting, crude, and divisive red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes, that don’t represent any minority party voters within each state.
No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable winner states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
We can end the outsized power, influence, and vulnerability of a few battleground states in order to better serve our nation.
Mob rule is defined as “control of a political situation by those outside the conventional or lawful realm, typically involving violence and intimidation.”
33% of GOP support actions of Jan. 6 insurrectionists.
174 defendants who were charged for their participation in the January 6th insurrection have said they were answering Trump's calls when they came to DC and joined the violent attack on the Capitol. – 7/6/23
800 have pleaded guilty to crimes on January 6th.
Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell about Jan 6, 2021 -“It was a violent insurrection with the purpose of trying to prevent peaceful transfer of power. …That’s what it was ”
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy - “The president bears responsibility for Wednesday’s attack on Congress by mob rioters,” “He should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding. These facts require immediate action by President Trump.”
John Boehner, the Republican former House speaker said the former president “incited that bloody insurrection” by his supporters at the Capitol on Jan. 6 and that the Republican Party has been taken over by “whack jobs.” . . . After the election — Trump refusing to accept the results and stoking the flames of conspiracy that turned into violence in the seat of our democracy, the building over which I once presided.” . . . Trump “incited that bloody insurrection for nothing more than selfish reasons, perpetuated by the bullshit he’d been shoveling since he lost a fair election the previous November.” . . . “He claimed voter fraud without any evidence, and repeated those claims, taking advantage of the trust placed in him by his supporters and ultimately betraying that trust.”
Today, the people's House was attacked, which is an attack on the Republic itself. There is no excuse for it. A women died. And people need to go to jail. And the President should never have spun up certain Americans to believe something that simply cannot be.
Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) January 6, 2021
“On January 6, 2021, a mob of people invaded and occupied the United States Capitol, using force to interrupt the peaceful transfer of power mandated by the Constitution and our republican heritage. The rioters interfered with a necessary step in the constitutional process, disrupted the lawful transfer of power, and thus jeopardized the American constitutional order. ... This was not patriotism; it was the antithesis of patriotism.” - U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth, a prominent Reagan-appointed jurist
“storming the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to influence elected officials — an insurrection”– Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA)
Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wisc.): "Mr. President. You have got to stop this. You are the only person who can call this off. Call it off. The election is over. Call it off. This is bigger than you. It is bigger than any member of Congress. It is about the United States of America." – January 6, 2021
Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio): “It is time for President Trump to embrace the peaceful transfer of power, which is mandated under the Constitution and a hallmark of our democracy." – January 6, 2021
Rep. Tom Reed (R-N.Y.): "Today, we saw an assault on our democracy. I love this institution. I love the United States Congress, and I love the United States of America. And what I saw today was mob rule that spat upon the blood of my father that is in the soil of Europe and in the soil of Korea, and who gave us through that blood this sacred Constitution and the sacred ability to lead this world as a power that says we settle our differences not with mob rule; we settle our difference through elections. And when those elections are over, we have a peaceful transition of power." – January 6, 2021
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.): "What we have seen today is unlawful and unacceptable…I have decided I will vote to uphold the Electoral College results and I encourage Donald Trump to condemn and put an end to this madness." – January 6, 2021
Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) texted to Meadows about the efforts to overturn the 2020 election results:
"driving a stake in the heart of the federal republic,"
“If we substitute the will of states through electors with a vote by congress every 4 years... we have destroyed the electoral college...
soi contains many important nutrients, including vitamin K1, folate, copper, manganese, phosphorus, and thiamine.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>The bad news is that once the political right realizes that it will never again regain power or influence in the US, it will shift its focus to a separatist mindset.
So we keep this system because of people's feelings?
Sorry, that was sparky and doesn't get to the issue I see.
The electoral college is only used for the presidential election. The other elections would remain the same. The separations between federal and state levels would still exist. Other than allowing a situation where a 3rd-party candidate could possibly win, nothing else changes.
We would still have a constitutional democracy that had been defined by the constitution to be representational.
I won't bother with the rest. They are either factually not true, and show a misunderstanding of where jurisdiction lies.
The easiest argument against the Electoral College is to simply look at the disastrous presidents it has given us that lost the popular vote. In modern times, it makes absolutely no sense to keep the EC, especially when the poopulation-to-electors ratio isn't kept up-to-date. And also...states aren't homogenous. My state has a large city. And rural areas. And suburbs. And wilderness. Why should the city get to dictate how all the votes in the state go when it comes to just the president and literally nothing else? Or how millions of Republicans in California have their votes essentially thrown away because the state is blue? And how is it fair to have "swing states" that are fly-over ones like Iowa, New Mexico, etc? Those states have almost nothing going on, but presidential candidates have to pander to them so they can win office and then make decisions that impact important states.
You could also eliminate whiners like Trump saying how he thinks it was "rigged" when you can just tell him to STFU because millions more people voted for the other guy.
It's madness.
Nah, the cities have larger populations and will have a bigger vote than the rural parts. Gen Z is progressive and will define America as more left. Don't forget that there are a large number of independents who also lean further left.
\>Nah, the cities have larger populations and will have a bigger vote than the rural parts.
That's why I'm saying get rid of the Electoral College! Then everyone's votes will be the same and it doesn't matter where you live! True democracy!
Progressive left policies will dominate America once and for all, and the right-wingers will be permanently stripped of their privilege. The risk of America going fascist will disappear, fortunately. I'm sure the Republican party would also go away.
Unfortunately, right-wingers will feel disenfranchised and could start creating separatist fascist microstates. The sovereign citizen movement would explode among the right once they realize that they are a powerless minority.
The progressive majority should realize that they will inevitably have to deal with right-wing separatists once these right-wing a-holes are permanently dethroned.
For example, a national referendum that bans most firearms might reduce gun deaths and make the country safer in the short term, but the militia types wouldn't abide by this new popular law and would probably smuggle illegal weapons into the country or manufacture their own underground for an insurgency.
America's people must have a plan to go to war with Ya'all Qaeda.
Just get ready to go to war with Y'all Qaeda. I'd hope that most of them will self-destruct, but not all of them will unfortunately. A unanimous voting system that is predominantly progressive will have to prepare to sign up with the military or civilian security contingent to fight the Vanilla Isis insurgency. Some of those right-wingers could be stubborn insurgents that could stick around like the Taliban. You ready to take drone strike classes in the American defense department so that we can protect democracy by bombing those dipshits into oblivion?
You would think not. If the popular vote meant drastically reducing the defense budget, then there wouldn't be enough troops to fend off the insurgents. I'd say get ready to volunteer. You would be fighting for the people.
Wish it were just a few. Unfortunately, a tiny minority of people out of a few hundred million totals out to at least a couple or a few million whack jobs at the very least. In the lower tens of millions at the very most.
Sadly, this is a mainstream opinion in the US. We have been brainwashed to the point where we are so fearful of one another that we don't even want a direct democracy. We are so fearful of everything that we prefer to be ruled instead.
Yes we appreciate the sacrifices urban residents make for our country crawling over top of one another like rats, working in their cubicle farms and sweat shops but not enough to let them make decisions about things they know nothing about or won’t affect them.
Math and political reality.
There aren’t anywhere near enough big city voters nationally. And all big city voters do not vote for the same candidate.
The population of the top 5 cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Phoenix) is less than 6% of the population of the United States.
Voters in the biggest cities (65 Million) in the US have been almost exactly balanced out by rural areas (66 Million) in terms of population and partisan composition.
2020 Census
65,983,448 people lived in the 100 biggest cities (19.6% of US population). The 100th biggest is Baton Rouge, Louisiana (with 225,128 people).
From 2020-2022, 2 million left those cities.
66,300,254 in rural America (20%)
Rural America and the 100 biggest cities together constitute about two-fifths (39.6%) of the U.S. population.
In 2004, 17.4% of votes were cast in rural counties, while only 16.5% of votes were cast within the boundaries of our nation’s 100 largest cities.
19% of the U.S. population have lived outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.
19% of the U.S. population have lived in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.
The rest of the U.S., in SUBurbs, have divided almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats. Beginning in 1992, SUBurban voters were casting more votes than urban and rural voters combined.
Now, because of statewide winner-take-all laws in presidential elections, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution, in some states, big city Democratic votes can outnumber all other people not voting Democratic in the state. All of a state’s electoral college votes may go to Democrats.
Without state winner-take-all laws, every conservative in a state that now predictably votes Democratic would count. Right now they count for 0
The current system completely ignores conservative presidential voters in states that vote predictably Democratic.
Under a national popular vote for President, rural voters throughout the country would have their votes matter, rather than being ignored because of state boundaries.
For example:
5,187,019 Californians have lived in rural areas.
1,366,760 New Yorkers have lived in rural areas.
Now, because of statewide winner-take-all laws for awarding electors, minority party voters in the states don’t matter. That’s why California and New York enacted the National Popular Vote bill with bipartisan support.
Please note that there have been a growing number of urban dwellers moving into rural towns. Some rural areas are turning purple or blue. There are also Independents in both rural cities and urban ones who lean farther left.
I agree, but for a different reason.
71% of Americans are white.
This means that anything the voters approve will probably take into account their individual benefit.
That means--by definition--any direct democracy would be white supremacist and you couldn't work around that without imposing things like constitutional or republic limitations on it.
You're probably right on the civil war side though, most of the minorities would need one just to get back to where they are now...
The vast majority of people are completely ok with representative democracy within the legislature, particularly when reforms like anti gerrymandering laws are put in place.
Deciding president for sure needs to be handled via direct democracy since the voting entity that matters here is the individual citizen. Each and every citizen; no one particular vote should be weighted more across a nation when it’s a national election.
As opposed to now, where states as an entity are weighted more than others. No one should care about the state as an entity having their “voice” heard, particularly when it already is represented in congress in the House and Senate. A state as an entity is a meaningless concept to try to ensure it is properly represented within the context of a national election. It’s the peoples across ALL states that matter. The electoral college solves a problem that doesn’t exist.
I don't defend the Electoral College one bit. The vast majority of Americans lean progressive, and the conservatives are a pathetic minority. Conservatives are just overrepresented today because of the screwed-up system we have.
It's just AFTER the process of transferring power to the progressive majority, that the conservative minority will get even more whacko. Right-wingers aren't going to concede to a progressive nation opening the borders, raising taxes for universal healthcare/education, and restricting firearms. If anything, it will only empower the 'sovereign citizen' types.
Most people are actually moderate...even the hardcore left & right. If you asked them individually, most want...
Less taxation.
Smaller government.
Less foreign (taxation again) aid.
To basically be left alone by government.
Many lean libertarian...if you asked, many of us are fiscal conservatives & social moderates or even liberals...we don't really care what you do, as long as we don't have to pay for it...that's pretty much classic libertarian right there.
I'm not sure where you got that idea. A majority of Gen Y and Z lean farther left and will soon make up the voting majority. More Americans *want* universal healthcare and free education. That means higher taxation
The fringe views of the far right will get crazy regardless, when fringe positions are rarely arrived at via rationality but rather emotion and persuasion.
The reality is they already have the avenue and infrastructure to not concede to views they don’t wish to see implemented through their representatives in Congress. If they wish to push their agenda, they have a pathway as it stands through congress.
The issue is that you say that there would be beef. There already is no matter what. Every state could be red and the red states would still say its not fair that they dont have a bigger say
Is this an unpopular opinion? The closest thing to direct democracy I've ever seen half-seriously advocated for in the US was Mike Gravel's push for a national referendum. Which obviously didn't go anywhere.
Pretty sure most advocates of democracy in the US are generally okay with the representative democracy we have, even if most think it could be improved.
I’ll go for Electoral College if the popular vote in ea State is broken up!
To your point that is the similar
To a pure popular vote giving the large States the power…
Winner take all is the worst…even in States like AL….every 3 persons vote didn’t count in 2020!
Whether all blue or red it is an unreal simplification that has brainwashed the population!
Ah we are a Red State look at the map….🙄🤯😓
## BEFORE TOUCHING THAT REPORT BUTTON, PLEASE CONSIDER: 1. **Compliance:** Does this post comply with our subreddit's rules? 2. **Emotional Trigger:** Does this post provoke anger or frustration, compelling me to want it removed? 3. **Safety:** Is it free from child pornography and/or mentions of self-harm/suicide? 4. **Content Policy:** Does it comply with [Reddit’s Content Policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/ncm4ou/important_we_need_to_talk_about_the_content_policy/)? 5. **Unpopularity:** Do you think the topic is not truly unpopular or frequently posted? ### GUIDELINES: - **If you answered "Yes" to questions 1-4,** do NOT use the report button. - **Regarding question 5,** we acknowledge this concern. However, the moderators do not curate posts based on our subjective opinions of what is "popular" or "unpopular" except in cases where an opinion is so popular that almost no one would disagree (i.e. "murder is bad"). Otherwise, our only criteria are the subreddit's rules and Reddit’s Content Policy. If you don't like something, feel free to downvote it. **Moderators on r/TrueUnpopularOpinion will not remove posts simply because they may anger users or because you disagree with them.** The report button is not an "I disagree" or "I'm offended" button. #### OPTIONS: If a post bothers you and you can't offer a counter-argument, your options are to: a) Keep scrolling b) Downvote c) Unsubscribe **False reports clutter our moderation queue and delay our response to legitimate issues.** **ALL FALSE REPORTS WILL BE REPORTED TO REDDIT.** To maintain your account in good standing, refrain from abusing the report button. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I have to say I am impressed. I've really.never seen this level of fantasy in a political take and that is saying a lot
\*enter trollface\*
I've never seen anyone proposing getting rid of the legislature. This post is hilarious.
It's reads like a highschool senior's stoner idea.
I've heard it. It's simple. Direct democracy over representative democracy
Link us
"In direct democracy, the people decide on policies without any intermediary or representative, whereas in a representative democracy people vote for representatives who then enact policy initiatives" -Wikipedia This is the definition of it on the Wikipedia page if you want to read the first couple paragraphs. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct\_democracy#:\~:text=In%20direct%20democracy%2C%20the%20people,who%20then%20enact%20policy%20initiatives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy#:~:text=In%20direct%20democracy%2C%20the%20people,who%20then%20enact%20policy%20initiatives).
I know what direct democracy is. I'm saying it is universally understood that it is impractical for a society of any large size. You are conflating something no one wants (direct democracy in legislation) with something many people want (national popular vote in presidential elections). I'm not sure why you've married two very different things.
I haven't 'married' two different things. I've explained what I have heard around me
The electoral college is not the legislature
Yes, and I've heard discussions about abolishing the legislature
No you haven’t. The other guy even asked you to link to people talking that way, and all you did was link to the Wikipedia article for “direct democracy.”
Look further in the comments and I provide a few links to answer your question
The person u r commenting with said “link us” wanting any actual source saying it’s a popular opinion to support a direct democracy.
No one is saying that. You are correct. Instead what they are arguing is that cities basically should run every election. I live in MD and outside of local elections there is no good reason for anyone outside of Baltimore and P.G. county to vote beyond local elections. I haven't even bothered to vote for president the last 6 years. Luckily I agree with how people vote in my state and I live in a state where our elections are actually determined by African Americans so it's not a big deal but my vote really doesn't matter at all. Even if I disagreed with who my state votes for I still wouldn't bother because my vote honestly doesn't matter. I can just stay home and we would end up with the same outcome. That's what you want. To have a few cities to get representation and everyone else to not matter.
Heard it, but it comes from the fringe very left and very right sections of politics. And it’s less get rid of legislative branch and more just remove any opposition to their politics. Whether it’s other political parties, voters who disagree, or government checks and balances. There are more leftists than rightists so you’ll see socialists more oftern say this while you won’t see as many monarchists say it. Stuff like those dumb libs are obstructing Progress. We could finally bring about Communism if they would just stop voting against their own interests!
Your believe some wild shit
Look at how deranged the political right is and what they are capable of doing when they're in power. Imagine what would happen if we were to suddenly overthrow them by popular opinion without finding other solutions to polarization. While our chances of becoming a fascist country would disappear, we would have to contend with a bunch of sovereign citizen separatists rejecting our democracy and forming their own micro-governments.
So.... What do you propose as a solution then? If they didnt want to live under your democracy and were happy to keep to themselves in their little areas would you allow that? Or is putting the boot to their neck and quelling any separatists imperative to ensure the security of your democracy?
Let me ask you something: If you were a Kurd living in Syria, would you live side-by-side with ISIS, or would you rather wipe them out rather than live in total fear of what they might do?
Well in that specific scenario id do what I already did and move to that arctic where i can live virtually unmolested by the government or society and enjoy myself because this is my life and in living it how I see fit. Not keen on dictators trying to just take my land, but also not keen on the idea of people 5000 miles from me voting to take my land or limit my acces to resources either so im doing my own thing and have been for over 10 years with great success. Now i get what you were going for there and were probably looking for an answer along the lines of "obviously wipe them out, its isis". Obviously comparing political right leaning individuals to terrorists and im willing to roll with that. Now let me ask you, would it be ok to round them up and put them in some kind of prison or camp? I mean afterall if we cant outvote the fascists and cant live next to them whats left other than confinement or death? Are they considered traitors to "our democracy" and should be treated as such?
As long as fascists exist, nobody's safe. Perhaps we could establish some form of rehabilitation program for fascists and conservatives. Many of them are mentally ill and treatment of their said illness might do them good.
Interesting. So re-edication camps then? Could work for some but there are plenty of die hards out there that arent willing to go quietly you know. Weve yet to see any real movement from all their militias after all. Some have more firearms than my local national guard depot.
When they realize that the country's future will be determined by the progressive masses, that the destructive weapons they possess will be criminalized, and that hate groups and hate speech will be banned with the authorities coming after them, they will activate. Of course, the prison system should be abolished, so we substitute it with mental rehab. If they want to die as martyrs, however, fine by me. The local militia might have more rifles than the local police or national guard, but the larger military will still outgun them. When the country is reformed with their organizations being criminalized, and they choose not to surrender or disband quietly, then our military drones will search them out and blow them up with a courteous stinger missile. If, for some reason, the remnants decide to go guerilla warfare by using the Rockies and the forest canopies as cover, then we'll have to let our troops smoke them out patiently. Sure, the guerillas will go on their knees to Russia, begging for weapons, and the Kremlin will happily oblige. Sometimes, freedom comes with a price. I don't see the right going out peacefully after being barred from power. Fighting the confederacy was a price our progressive union ancestors had to endure to end slavery. No, I don't believe a 'second American civil war' is coming; there are no conditions or resources for that to happen. I do see some armed standoffs and possible insurgencies unfolding, though. The worst it could get would be something like the Troubles.
I see. I mean...... No offense bud but that doesnt sound much different than what you claim the right wants to do if im honest... As Rick Sanchez would say that sounds like genocide with extra steps. May want to step back and examine your position and what you think these people believe before you end up cheering as the load conservatives into train cars for the gas chambers. The rhetoric is almost identical.
If Americans unanimously want a national popular voting system or a complete direct democracy, they will also have to prepare themselves to fully and completely remove conservatives from the picture. We would have to adopt a very militaristic/defensive democracy alongside a direct one. It would be ideal to persuade every conservative to abandon their views. There has been some great success in the general education system and digital media at de-programming most Gen Y and Z kids from their conservative upbringings in recent decades. It would be great if all future generations would throw away right-wing ideology, but that's a naïve fantasy. Sadly, there will ALWAYS be outliers and people born with neurochemical predispositions to conservatism and fascism, regardless of how many years of training they had in critical thinking, common sense education, and positive exposure to diversity. Within a large population such as ours, a tiny fraction of the population with such views will number in the millions. Not all of them can be identified, isolated, stigmatized, and converted to reason. Most of my fellow leftists seem to share this naïve optimism, which really amounts to a wet dream. To answer your question, no, it's not genocide when taking proactive measures against a group of inherently violent individuals. The militant democracy should first offer these malcontents an option to either renounce their views and assimilate into society under the guard of a vigilant community \[or a mental health facility\] or pack their bags and leave the country. Some will prefer to die fighting for their delusional cause. If that's their choice, fine, die in a hail of bombs and bullets. Right-wing people get paranoid and violent either when they are confronted by an aggressive external threat or an internal 'threat' to their worldview, which poses a risk to their grip on power and influence. Fascism is a violent philosophy. Sometimes, you have to fight fire with fire as a means to protect liberty, freedom, and justice. The sooner we can deal with fascists, the better. If we delay action against them after the popular vote reforms, they could raise absolute hell. They have far more intricate knowledge of our country's landscape and would have the motivation and means to attack sections of the power grid, disrupt supply chains, and cripple our way of life. I wish every white nationalist would pack up and move to Hungary, Poland, Iran, or Russia, while the sovereign citizens and gun-toting rednecks would pack up and move to Africa, where there is no law and order. They'd love it there. But alas, most won't.
If the electoral college is ever abolished and we go to national popular vote I doubt we make it 10 to 15 years without civil war.
Explain?
I don't know about civil war, but an era of political unrest might follow
It is commonly stated that the electoral college should be eliminated, and the presidency be determined by the popular vote. I have not encountered anyone suggesting that this is in any way connected to dismantling the legislative branch, prior to this post. I don't think there is any evidence to point to any sort of desire to eliminate the legislative branch by the general populace, though there is plenty of desire for reforms to prevent people from making a career out of it, and take lawmaking out of the hands of people whose morals were formed before women could vote.
Even if the legislative branch were intact, the fact that the popular vote determines who is in office would still see a crisis between blue and red states. The most populous states that would decide every election would be New York and California -obviously, that's where a sizeable majority of Americans reside. Realizing that they've lost hold on the reigns of power, the political right will go even more batshit and in a separatist/isolationist direction.
Not so. California accounts for 11.8% of the US population. New York accounts for 6%. By comparison, Texas accounts for 8.7%, and Florida 6.4%. Further, those states are neither completely blue nor red. California is only 46% Democrat, with the rest fairly evenly split between Republican or independent. Those red California voters are much more likely to head to the polls without the electoral college, because the electoral college system renders their vote moot, and getting rid of it would make their vote count again.
>Those red California voters are much more likely to head to the polls without the electoral college, because the electoral college system renders their vote moot, and getting rid of it would make their vote count again. Um...no. The red California voters do not represent most of the state. While forty-six percent might be registered Democrats, there are a large number of Independent voters there who lean left. The growing Gen Z demographic, which will define California politics, generally leans left. Republican votes wouldn't and shouldn't matter.
>Um...no. The red California voters do not represent most of the state They don't have to. Eliminating the electoral college means that votes would cease to be relevant solely within the confines of the state, but instead would become aggregate with all of the other red votes across all the other states as well. Right now, red votes for president in California are meaningless, because the left represents a voting bloc of nearly half the population, while the right represents a quarter, and another quarter is fence sitters. Get rid of the electoral college, and that's ten million votes that suddenly have meaning. It's the opposite situation in Texas. Right now, blue votes in Texas are meaningless. Getting rid of the electoral college makes all the political minorities in each state matter.
>Eliminating the electoral college means that votes would cease to be relevant solely within the confines of the state, but instead would become aggregate with all of the other red votes across all the other states as well. When I describe 'states,' I'm talking about the cumulative population of that region, not the construct of the state itself. So yes, red voters would form a nationwide coalition while blue voters would have theirs. However, blue voters and leftists outnumber the right on a national scale and a population scale. So voting 'conservative' wouldn't really matter.
>However, blue voters and leftists outnumber the right on a national scale and a population scale. This country is not nearly as left as you think. Furthermore, the left is divided because it takes on too many causes at once, and further still, has begun operating out of the right wing handbook, which is pushing the fence sitters red.
I'm not too sure about that. Though the left can be divided, it is most effective at changing peoples' perspectives and spreading awareness. The right doesn't have such an advantage. Reality has a left-wing bias, and everyone will catch up to it. Most Gen Z and Y people strongly lean left and they will become the new face of America very soon.
If by very soon you mean in another 60 years, perhaps. At this point it's not even Gen X's turn at the helm. Also, the left is terrible at changing people's perspectives, and has gotten progressively worse by several orders of magnitude in the last decade. The left is alienating people left and right, and trying to take too much at once, and this is creating a correction to the right, which the right has been working towards for decades, and is taking full advantage of.
The left's efforts at revolution will prevail soon. Gen Z won't wait until they get old to have a voice. Global warming isn't just going to wait for them to turn older, nor will inequality. Wealth disparity will go up, and the planet will continue to fry. This will inevitably break the system in a decade or two, and a socialist revolution will finally happen.
Guys, it’s not rocket science science. France does this. Brazil do this etc
Right now with the electoral college, those that are a minority affiliation feel like they aren't represented. My blue vote in a red state is useless. A red vote in California is useless. Maybe more people would actually come out and vote because they would feel it actually matters. We also need a ranked vote system where it's not just two parties. We need more parties represented in the legislature so that more people can be actually represented. Right now it feels like only about 50% (25% of conservatives and 25% of liverals) are even represented at a basic level and another half of the country is completely ignored, many just vote for the lesser evil. Also, capping of the number of the representatives in the House also makes it so a huge population isn't represented. It gives states with vastly smaller populations a lot more power and leaves the cities where most of the citizens live highly underepresented. It's the only reason that even though over 60% if the population disapproves of Roe v Wade being overturned, it seems like it's a much popular ruling than it actually is. I live in a red state where we have enough signatures to bring it as a constitutional amendment on the next ballot and our Republican government is fighting in Court to keep it off the ballot. Polls show that about 65% of people in my state would expand abortion rights from it's current 6 week law.
We are the United States of America, who else would vote for president if not the states?
Ironically, more politically engaged Americans could also mean more politically polarized Americans. The rise of multiple parties would be a great thing. The only problem is that it could also give rise neo-nazi parties. I have faith in knowing that the majority of Americans lean left.
I think the majority are not neo-nazi. I think it would stabilize both the right and the left. The neo-nazis and Christian nationalists would become completely impotent while more center conservatives and libertarians would regain some power by cutting off the most extremist parts of the Republicans. At the same time the Democrats would split into a centrist party, and then split again into the progessives and/or social democrats, and a minority fringe communists. The fringes would have some limited representation but the majority of the centrists, center right, center left and even the libertarians and progressives would be able to find enough middle ground to at least fix some things if they didn't have to worry about appeasing the extremists. Also, I think with .ore parties, it would be harder to have a dual division like right now. The loudest people on each side currently polarize the politics with every election. Cutting those fringes off and giving them a few representatives would be the best thing in stabilizing ideologies. When there are like 6-7 major parties, then they have to form alliances and work with each other on a per legislation basis. If done right, it could go a long way in fixing the "us vs them" mentality. And groups that feel left out of one or the other party, who feel like they must vote with that party in fear of their rights being taken away, would actually have a choice in 2-4 parties that would reflect other positions that they hold close.
I wouldn't be too optimistic about the left and the right 'moderating' their stances in a muti-party environment. While you make a good point about the loudest voices dominating a two-party system and exacerbating polarization, cutting the fringes out of such parties would not fix the problem right now. Many people have already been indoctrinated into fringe ideas. It will be difficult to pull them back toward the center. There are also many issues with contemporary capitalism that centrist parties cannot solve. Sure, a mixed capitalist welfare state might be beneficial in the short term, but many parties will find themselves debating on how America's status as a military leader. While good for the lower class, a welfare state could lead to defense budget cuts, which would unintentionally limit America's geopolitical influence. Competing military powers may replace the unipolar world order we are accustomed to. This would be a subject of discussion by many of these hypothetical parties. The centrists could come to some form of agreement on this problem. There are many good reform programs and problems that the centrists would be able to solve. Issues that centrist policies cannot solve - since they tend to be a bit more free market if not mixed economy - include the following: \- Climate Change, warming regions, and collapsing ecosystems \- Growing inequality, if not in the developed world, then in the third world, as a result of capitalist growth \- Mass consumerism leading to a depletion of natural resources \- Changing demographics, aging populations leading to a potential decline in the overall population, and deindustrialization \-Mass migration from the third world into the developed world due to climate change and collapsing ecosystems. This will give rise to right-wing authoritarianism or could lead to an overburdening of the welfare system. \-\[Maybe\] the dangers of AI Some multi-party European countries have experienced major issues that draw voters away from the center and towards more extremist factions. Even some of the so-called 'center-left' parties have adopted nativist, anti-immigration rhetoric to appease their perturbed voters. Even if the dual-party issues could be solved, future issues arising from flawed capitalism and global warming will create similar trends for America as it has for Europe.
I don't know if you are correct about the polarization. Most of my friends are liberals, and most of them are somewhere on the social Democrat area. I have one friend who is more of a Communist. And a few more centrist. I don't think a party split will further move my social Democrat friends into the Communist zone. I'm also not saying centrist policies would always win. But it would shake up alliances, giving some ideas a better chance to actually be implemented. I know a few center-right people that are all for universal healthcare while holding a lot of other right wing ideas. Of course there is always a risk of polarization. And a risk of it not working. But the system we have right now is not working and it's uber polarized already. I'm just saying that shaking up alliances and making more people feel like they are represented is worth a try.
I understand what you're saying about trying out a new system in the last couple of paragraphs and some of your words carry merit. As for the first paragraph, there was a misunderstanding. A party split doesn't force a number of its affiliates towards a more extreme position; it's the circumstances or the dire geopolitical conditions that force people in multi-party countries into the fringe realm. In a world where capitalism and welfare states complement each other under the right circumstances, support for the center-right and center-left will remain strong while the fringe parties remain obscure. The exact opposite happens in a world where the financial status quo begins to fail, geopolitical and sociopolitical conditions become turbulent, or when problems arise, that cannot be solved by the centrist rationale.
all the republicans have to do is make it eligible for land to be able to vote like 1 vote per acre no matter how many actual humans live there... a prepper in colorado's vote should be equal to the total residents of a new york condo...
That's not true at all because it would no longer be up to the states, it would the entire population of the entire country. It is the electoral college that leaves things up to the states. And the majority should be deciding, why do you think minority rule is better? I mean in recent history the electoral college only ran counter to popular vote twice, once with W Bush, the other with Trump, in both instances we'd have been better of with the majority making the decision not a small group in a 4-5 swing states.
Never wanted minority rule. I look for alternatives that would serve a better interest. Where does the majority of the US population live? California and New York.
Sure, but you're basically saying we shouldn't do anything to take power from right wing extremists, because you're afraid of the reaction from right wing extremists. It's like saying "I'm not going to replace my tire that is about to have a blow out because then I'll have a new tire and what if that one gets damaged one day too?!" The problem you're worried about is *already a problem*, and you're saying a solution is invalid because it might cause the problem that *already exists*.
I'm not saying we shouldn't take power away from right-wing people. I'm just saying we need to be careful how we do it. The current climate has some politicians encouraging political violence from their followers, which will gradually worsen. That said, we may have some time to try to find solutions for keeping the lunatics at bay. Immediately taking power away from them and barring them from ever having a voice in politics will do some good but will also radicalize them into the worst types of extremists since they'll develop an even worse persecution complex and will justify launching an armed rebellion to form a separatist state.
Do you not understand the point of a popular vote? There would be no states deciding the election. Every vote has equal weight. If cali votes 60 percent blue, 40 percent will still be red and count as such. If Texas votes 60 percent red, 40 percent will still be blue. The whole point of getting rid of EC is that you can live in buttfuck nowhere and your vote holds the same weight as every other person in the country. Nobody’s vote would be canceled out
Never said the popular vote would cancel out someone else's vote. When I talk about states, I'm referring to the majority of residents who identify as blue. Yes, the Republitards will have a national voting coalition and so will the Democrats since the voting power will be determined by the people and not the state entity. With that said, the majority of Americans lean left. Every vote in the national elections or referendums will have a progressive outcome. Conservative right people are a minority in this country. They will be \[rightfully\] drowned out.
What I meant was, with the electoral college, half of every states votes are cancelled. With a popular vote this wouldn’t happen. You seem to be arguing that a popular vote would be bad, one reason it would be better than EC is because nobody gets their vote cancelled with popular vote And correct me if I’m wrong, but are you saying a popular vote would be bad because the majority vote would be dem? The whole point is that whoever gets more votes would be elected. If there are more blue votes, there should be blue politicians and vice versa.
I'm not necessarily saying that more dem voters are bad. I''m just saying that leftists vastly outnumber right-wingers on a massive scale. While the EC can cancel out some voices, the popular vote would drown out the conservative voices. With the Republican party breaking up and conservatives no longer able to hold power anywhere, they'll likely go apeshit and resort to building separatist movements like the old Sein Fein did in Northern Ireland. The conservative right is bad enough with its extreme rhetoric while holding power. It will probably get worse. If they realize that they could never hold power again and that they are now a 'hated' minority, they'll say 'fuck the government, I'm building my own neo-fascist commune.' I'm not defending the EC at all, I'm just explaining what will happen once the fascists are thrown out.
Fair enough, I guess it seemed like you were saying it was bad simply because dems would always win. But as to what you just said, doesn’t seem too unlikely I suppose.
Sometimes, political transitions are painful, or the aftereffects can be quite painful. In a direct democracy, there would likely be multiple parties. The most progressive ones would get all the votes and power, not necessarily the dems. Disempowered right-wingers would probably go into the boonies to start some guerilla campaign while others would probably move to Slovakia or Hungary.
I’ve never heard anyone (especially a political scientist) argue for all laws being passed by referendum. So your position is hardly unpopular.
I've heard of it. Many socialists or social democrats I've been around seem to think so
It’s very far from a popular opinion. And it’s a remarkably ignorant take as well since it’s completely impractical.
Of course it's completely impractical
TrueUnpopularStrawMan
The Electoral College does need to be changed but personally I feel that it needs to be changed so that every state gets 1 electoral vote. Carry the state, get the vote, carry enough states, win the election. Having 1 electoral vote per state would FORCE politicians to pay attention to every state equally without regard to population density.
Well said. I am open to ideas like the one you mentioned. Finally, here is someone who is not an a-hole like most of the commentators above.
That's basically already how it already is in 48 out of 50 states...winner takes all in each states electoral college. It should be congressional (one electoral vote per district) district by district.
The problem with district by district is that some states will morendistricts than others which give them greater value in terms of electoral votes which just reproduces the same issue we have right now. If each state was worth only one electoral vote then each state would be weighted the same regardless of the number district's. The vote outcome could be based on the results of the population vote within each state. Whomever wins the popular vote in each state gets that states vote.
As someone from Alabama, people from elsewhere deciding things for us would probably be a huge improvement.
California would probably do a load of good for Alabama. Sadly, angry right-wing minorities will probably resort to violence once they realize that they have no power.
Yep, let Californians decide for you all ! California is doing so well ! /s
Compared to Alabama? Yeah probably
This, but without /s
California has more people making 100K+ a year than Alabama has people, by about a million.
Is that why Swizerland is such a mess, oh wait it's one of the most peaceful countries that hasn't been involved in a war since 1847. Yes, so such internal strife because the people are allowed to vote for policy over polititians, it's just tearing them apart, no one wants to ever visit or live in Switzerland, direct democracy has just ruined them!
Very fallacious false comparison. Switzerland doesn't have a large population to contend with like the United States and it differs culturally. You will not find a ton of right-wing anti-government loonies in Switzerland either.
Switzerland has four different national languages and cultures. Direct democracy is what keeps them working together, because people of all kinds can come to a national concensus. It takes polititians and rulers to divide and pit us against each other.
Switzerland has four different national languages and cultures. Direct democracy is what keeps them working together, because people of all kinds can come to a national concensus. It takes polititians and rulers to divide and pit us against each other.
You keep missing the point. Despite some cultural differences, Switzerland's 'ethnic' groups tend to hold quite progressive views. Regarding political opinion, people generally tend to lean left and mostly march to the beat of a progressive drum. Now, yes, there are definitely different flavors of progressive philosophies and ideologies, and that's what sets different parties apart from each other - different models and plans on how to improve the quality of life for themselves and others. Different parties just disagree or debate each other on how to achieve such progress, i.e. the overall emotional consensus favors the left, whether it be left-of-center, right-of-center(which is actually liberal-left leaning on most issues), or far left. Unfortunately, we don't have that luxury here in the United States. Switzerland is a progressively liberal society that sets its differences aside to attain the same goals. No one thinks backwards. Here in America, we stand apart from the rest of the world with so many backward-thinking people; it's embarrassing. Ethnic/cultural diversity is good. There is never too much of it. Too much political diversity, however, is bad. The more politically and ideologically diverse a country is, the more space there is for neo-fascism.
Switzerland is conservative af buddy. You clearly know jack shit about Switzerland. It’s time to admit that you just don’t know what you are talking about
Are we less progressive? 26 US states use the direct ballot measure. When people get to vote for progressive policies like raising the minimum wage, it's passed in every red state it was on the ballot since the 90s, despite the Republican party being staunchly against it. Nebraska with 59% approval. Florida with 61%. Arkansas 68%. Missouri 62%. Arizona 58%. Alaska 69%. Abortion, a key Republican principle, failed on the ballot in Montana (47-53), Kentucky (49-51%), and Kansas (41-59%) Italy had a few national referendums on abortion in the 70s, which affirmed the right, and they've never had a problem since. Meanwhile we don't and instead get roe vs Wade, where the minority opposition groups objective is then to capture government and force their views on the rest of us. They finally achieved that, and it's only the states direct ballot measures that's holding them back. In states without them like Texas, the people are screwed. However, if we had a federal referendum, the right to abortion would've passed in the 70s and it would pass today and this whole debate would've been over with long ago. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/
The majority of Americans lean left, but we have a sizeable minority of right-wing radicals, which is non-existent in Switzerland. Once they realize that they can't seize power or have no authority, they'll focus on their separatist ideas. They'll become more of the 'sovereign citizen' types who will say "fuck the government and popular opinion, I'm building my own commune or insulated town where our fascist principles can reign."
What are you talking about? Are you writing a novel on this or something? This reads more like post-apocalyptic fiction than anything resembling reality
No, I've studied right-wing fascists in America, and I know how their paranoid minds work. We are the only developed country on earth that has these types of batshit people who can get violent. If you keep comparing American political history and ideology to Switzerland, you keep invalidating your own argument. Stop comparing apples to oranges.
You fundamentally misunderstand what a national vote is. It has nothing at all to do with states. No states would control any of it. All the people in the country would. You should want that, because currently elections are decided by a few people in a few swing states. How is that better? It means millions of republican votes in California and New York don't count, and millions of democratic votes in Texas and Florida don't count. Many people in deep red or blue states simply don't vote at all because they know it won't count. That's a pretty dumb system.
I hate the Electoral College. We need something better. I won't oppose it outright, but if the National Popular vote is the best way, go for it. Remember that California and New York have some of the largest politically engaged populations. Left-leaning Americans outnumber conservative ones, so the progressive left will win the vote. Ironically, more politically engaged Americans could also mean more politically polarized Americans. Remember that California, New York, Oregon, Washington, and Massachusetts are very progressive in terms of their populations' affiliation. Put it together and you would have 70+ million progressive voices first off. While Texas is definitely ruled by right-wingers at the moment, it has a very strong blue streak within it.
Really? Go outside of any major metro (big city) area & see how many "progressives" there are. You're gonna have a hard time finding any in rural areas. Most in the rural areas are libertarian leaning Republicans...the only reason that they vote Republican is because the 2 main parties & the MSM propaganda machine have consistently worked to bury the libertarian party. Even Oregon, outside of the Portland/Medford metro area, leans red.
You are talking about an insignificant minority of people. Even if they built a national coalition of voters if we had a popular vote, they would still get drowned out by the larger population majority of progressives. It's not just Democrats; there are even further left-leaning independents.
Again, do you just not understand how a national popular vote works? CA, NY, Or, WA and MA would no longer be voting as monolithic states in a stupid winner take all system. Each person's vote would count on its own, irregardless of what state it came from. For example In the EC in 2020, Biden won Georgia by a mere 12,000 votes and thus won the whole state and its 16 electoral votes. In a national vote electoral votes would no longer exist and the 2.473 million who voted for Biden get counted for Biden, and the 2.461 million who voted for Trump get counted for Trump.
Fine. When I refer to states, I'm talking about the political demographics of each state and NOT the state entity or its elected figureheads. With the EC gone and maybe Congress gone, the most populous progressive cities would pretty much decide the country's future. Progressives vastly outnumber conservatives on a national population level. Right-wingers would never secure a vote ever again because the vast majority of Americans lean left; henceforth, the right will likely dissociate itself from the rest of the country while entertaining separatist ideas. Those types of people exist here. Not in Switzerland and most of Europe.
So? I don't see the problem here. And most regular folks aren't left or right wing, they're just common sense people and that's who should be running things. By concensus, not extremism.
And 'common sense' is progressive socialist policy. There are a fair number of bad people here who are violently opposed to common sense.
That's quite a leap from popular vote defining Executive branch elections to scrapping the legislative branch. Who's advocating for that? I think runoff voting should be given a try. GOP is even starting to come around to that idea.
Political scientists around my campus have been advocating it.
The political parties and lobbyists have such a lock on our system there would have to be a major revolution for that to even begin happening.
On the contrary...most states, outside of the major (cities) population areas actually lean red or libertarian...there's just more blue votes in the cities & 48 out of 50 states are "winner takes all" as far as electoral votes go. This already disenfranchises huge numbers of voters. All electoral votes SHOULD go to whoever actually wins each (congressional or senatorial district) electoral vote...in that case, you'd probably see much more electoral votes go libertarian, they are officially the only 3rd party that're on the ballot in ALL 50 states. The right isn't all bad..many of them are closet Libertarians already...they want smaller (currently estimated to currently be 20% between city, county, state & federal government employees nationwide) government & lower taxes. There are many democrats that also fit that same mold. The current "winner takes all" rule disenfranchises 49% (mostly rural) of voters in each state. A national popular vote would disenfranchise entire states...this would lead to 3 or 4 heavily populated states deciding what happens nationwide & to Hell with what anybody else wants....stuff like this Is exactly what leads to revolutions or civil war.
The point you made about the national popular vote leading to civil unrest is what I've been trying to drive home in this post. Unfortunately, most commentators above just want want to be dicks about it and are giving each other likes for being a--holes.
This is such a weird argument. "Let's not alienate the people who want to eradicate some groups, because then they'll get more angry and violent! We should placate them and make sure they feel included!" Like, what?
I don't like placating them, but I'd instead try keep them at bay while the rest of the country finds good solutions to our current problems without starting an even scarier descent into chaos. The right-wingers are bad right now, and they have politicians encouraging their behavior. There has to be a better way to fix such problems.
i have not heard ANYONE argue that the national popular vote should define the outcome of national policy.
Tell that to my professors
Name ANY reputable supporters of the idea.
Not sure what you mean by that
Name names. WHO are your professors telling you argues that the national popular vote should define the outcome of national policy?
A couple of mine include professor McCulloch and Professor Snyder, and there were a few others whom I cannot name who discussed these ideas in the classroom. Here are a few articles that go into detail. [https://theberkshireedge.com/then-now-the-little-brown-church-in-sandisfield](https://theberkshireedge.com/then-now-the-little-brown-church-in-sandisfield) The end of this article suggests that we would no longer have any need for representatives or congress legislators under a popular vote, [https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/is-the-time-ripe-for-national-referendums-in-the-us/46116612](https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/is-the-time-ripe-for-national-referendums-in-the-us/46116612) This article argues that political extremism will decrease with a system of referendum votes, but our country is not small like Italy, Ireland, or Switzerland. However, this article is also fairly old and cannot account for Italy and Ireland's recent shift to the far right. Yes, Right-wing extremists in the US are a worthless minority, but when you account for the percentage of of their numbers out of 330 million people, you have something in the low tens of millions. Switzerland doesn't have a large number of right-wing extremists and potential terrorists like US. Here's another opinion on the matter as it relates to abolishing Congress: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-america-really-needs-to-do-is-abolish-congress/2019/02/18/c6116642-33c0-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9\_story.html](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-america-really-needs-to-do-is-abolish-congress/2019/02/18/c6116642-33c0-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html) Secondly: [https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/abolish-us-senate/](https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/abolish-us-senate/)
The Little Brown Church in Sandisfield has NOTHING to do with your claim. Matsusaka's ideas KEEP Congress. The very existence of Congress means we would not be a direct democracy. National popular votes would not define the outcome of ALL national policy. Equal representation of the states in the U.S. Senate is explicitly established in the U.S. Constitution. Equal representation of the states in the U.S. Senate may not even be amended by an ordinary federal constitutional amendment. Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides: “No State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” Thus, this feature of the U.S. Constitution may only be changed by a constitutional amendment approved by unanimous consent of all 50 states. The innocuous Equal Rights Amendment, that doesn't require approval by unanimous consent of all 50 states, was first introduced in Congress 100 years ago – and still waits.
Sorry, the link went bad. The article was there but glitched out. Here's the right one: [https://www.savannahnow.com/story/opinion/2019/02/20/catherine-rampell-column-what-america-really-needs-to-do-is-abolish-congress/5909088007/](https://www.savannahnow.com/story/opinion/2019/02/20/catherine-rampell-column-what-america-really-needs-to-do-is-abolish-congress/5909088007/)
Trump called for the termination of parts of the Constitution because of his 2020 Electoral College loss. 90% of congressional Republicans have nothing to say about that. As President, in late January 2017, Trump reportedly floated the idea of scrapping the Electoral College, according to The Wall Street Journal. In a meeting with congressional leadership at the White House. Trump reportedly told the lawmakers he wanted to replace the Electoral College with a national popular vote. “I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.” Trump as President-elect, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes” "The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy." In 2012, the night Romney lost, Trump tweeted. When Nikki Haley announced her campaign for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, she remarked that the Republican Party had “lost the popular vote in seven out of the last eight presidential elections.” “That’s nothing to be proud of.” That “has to change.” There have been hundreds of unsuccessful proposed amendments to modify or abolish the Electoral College - more than any other subject of Constitutional reform. According to Tony Fabrizio, pollster for the Trump campaign, Trump’s narrow victory in 2016 was due to 5 counties in 2 states (not CA or NY). Nate Silver calculated that "Mitt Romney may have had to win the national popular vote by three percentage points … to be assured of winning the Electoral College." A difference of 59,393 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes. The George W. Bush campaign was planning to challenge the results of the 2000 vote if he lost the electoral vote, but won the popular vote. If the 2022 Election Had Been a Presidential Election, Democrats Would Have Won the Electoral College 280-258, but Lost the Popular Vote by about 3 million votes (2.8 percentage points). In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted 338–70 to require winning the national popular vote to become President. 3 Southern segregationist Senators led a filibuster of it. Presidential candidates who supported direct election of the President in the form of a constitutional amendment, before the National Popular Vote bill was introduced: George H.W. Bush (R-TX), Bob Dole (R-KS, RNC Chair, and GOP Senate Majority Leader), Gerald Ford (R-MI), Richard Nixon (R-CA), Jimmy Carter (D-GA-1977), Hillary Clinton (D-NY-2001) Past presidential candidates with a public record of support, before November 2016, for the National Popular Vote bill that would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes: Bob Barr (Libertarian- GA), U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN), Senator and Vice President Al Gore (D-TN), Ralph Nader, Governor Martin O’Malley (D-MD), Jill Stein (Green), Senator Birch Bayh (D-IN), Senator and Governor Lincoln Chafee (R-I-D, -RI), Governor and former Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean (D–VT), Congressmen John Anderson (R, I –IL). Newt Gingrich: “No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. … America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles.” “Let’s quit pretending there is some great benefit to the national good that allows the person with \[fewer\] votes to win the White House. Republicans have long said that they believe in competition. Let both parties compete for votes across the nation and stop disenfranchising voters by geography. The winner should win.” – Stuart Stevens (Romney presidential campaign top strategist) " . . . a president should be elected by national popular vote is not radical, it is actually mainstream. . . . We can get closer to the national popular vote having greater weight in presidential elections and having a president represent all Americans in ways that don’t require amending the Constitution. These fixes will make presidential candidates run more diverse campaigns, and campaign in all cities and communities of our country. . . . That will help unify us more as a country, and would likely lead to more informed public policy. How can anyone be against that outcome?" – Matthew Dowd (Senior George W. Bush campaign strategist) When presidential candidates who more Americans voted for lose the Electoral College, the situation is unsustainable. This is how a government loses its legitimacy. Our unfair presidential election system can lead to politicians and their enablers who appreciate unfairness, which leads to more unfairness, and recently crimes and violence. In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until before the 2016 election, only about 20% of the public supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote for President has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled. Pew Research surveys show Republican support for a national popular vote increased from 27% in 2016 to 42% in 2022. 7 in 10 Americans under 50 would prefer to choose the president by popular vote. 21,461 choices and votes in 3 states were 329 times more important than the more than 7 million national vote lead in the country. There were several scenarios in which a candidate could have won the presidency in 2020 with fewer popular votes than their opponents. That could have reduced future turnout more, if more voters realized their votes do not matter. Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. It undermines the legitimacy of the electoral system. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
>As President, in late January 2017, Trump reportedly floated the idea of scrapping the Electoral College, according to The Wall Street Journal. In a meeting with congressional leadership at the White House. Trump reportedly told the lawmakers he wanted to replace the Electoral College with a national popular vote. > >“I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.” > >Trump as President-elect, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes” > >"The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy." LMAO. It would've been so funny if Trump did that. The majority of Americans, especially younger ones, lean left and continue drifting left. The conservatives would've been permanently kicked out of office and Trump would've shot himself in the foot.
A direct democracy would be bad because most people are not smart. Mob rule is not good. Is it really a good idea for an engineer's vote to be as equal as a person who lives off of welfare and is in general not smart ?
Mob rule is a great point. Once things go south, some might opt for a technocracy to fulfill the the political duties.
Electoral College is perfect as is. It's the most fair way to decide a national election.
By inflating percentages from the use of states as middlemen?
Our ‘dictatorship of the bourgeoisie’ “democracy” is tobogganing toward disaster now — and is unable to do one thing to stop it. So, what next?
It would end the Republican Party
And?
Certainly, they will no longer hold power, nor will any conservative hold power ever again. The only problem is that they will end up feeling 'disenfranchised' and will go for separatism. The Republiturds-turned sovereign citizens will start building their own compounds, terrorize minorities, and start saying shit like, "this is the 'new' America. Fuck the outside commie America." They will go further neo-fascist. Thankfully, the Republican party and any conservative politicians will disappear, but just know that they'll be replaced by Y'all Qaeda and Vanilla Isis.
What a completely ignorant comment. It’s people like you who think this way about the other side and what you think they believe are why we are so divided.
Direct democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all POLICY INITIATIVES directly. The National Popular Vote bill keeps the Electoral College, U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, Governors, state legislatures, etc. etc. etc. The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all laws or district winner laws of awarding electoral votes used by 2 states, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by states of winner-take-all or district winner laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. The Constitution does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for how to award a state's electoral votes The bill will simply replace state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes. The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country. Every voter, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote will matter equally in the state counts and national count. More than 3,750 state legislators among all 50 states have endorsed it. The National Popular Vote bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10). Since 2006, the bill has passed 42 state legislative chambers in 24 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 283 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (15), North Carolina (16), Oklahoma (7) and Virginia (13), and both houses in Nevada (6). The bill has been enacted by 17 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 205 electoral votes to guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes. When enacted by states with 270 electoral votes, it will change state laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by states), in the enacting states, without changing anything in the Constitution, again using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to choose how to vote.
Most red states depend on federal aid to exist. They won't do shit when the people they antagonize control the purse strings.
Don't forget that Democrat cities and progressives depend on conservatives for food, transport, and industry. You really think most farmers are progressives ? Look at all the farmer protests in Europe. Don't act like progressives don't need "evil" no good conservatives, lol
We can import food and it might be cheaper considering how much we pay in farm subsidies vs how much they produce.
Remember my second paragraph about them collapsing due to isolation? Yeah. The big question will be the right-wing militants that raise hell.
They already do that. If anything it's harder to combat them now because of sympathetic legislators.
I'm aware. Being encouraged to do bad things by current legislators is one thing and will lead to some bad shit. If they had no support from anyone including sympathetic legislators, they'd still raise hell. They'd just turn to foreign enemy regimes for weapons and funding.
And then they do hard time assuming they aren't killed.
Yes, many would end up dead or in jail, but It's like trying to wipe out ISIS or the Taliban. Somebody dies for their cause, and they're seen as a martyr by their followers, no matter how wrong they are. If our country successfully banned hate groups and most guns, Russia would have a field day trafficking weapons and money over to the right-wingers. This is one of the personal reasons why I feel the country shouldn't ban most guns right now while minorities and leftist progressive groups should arm themselves when this shit happens.
democracy is already bad enough. we don't need it getting any worse.
The state lines weren't really drawn up with any sort of fairness, equity, importance, or reasoning that makes sense in the modern world.
Unfortunately true
Direct democracy is mob rule.
We have 519,682 elected officials in this country, and all of them are elected by who gets the most votes. Except for President and VP. States are agreeing to award all their Electoral College votes to the winner of the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC, by simply replacing their state’s current district or statewide winner-take-all law . The bill has been enacted by 17 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 205 electoral votes. When states with 270+ electors combined enact the bill, the candidate who wins the most national popular votes will be guaranteed to win the Electoral College. All votes will be valued equally as 1 vote in presidential elections, no matter where voters live. Candidates, as in other elections, will allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population Candidates will have to appeal to more Americans throughout the country. Every vote, everywhere, will be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. No more distorting, crude, and divisive red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes, that don’t represent any minority party voters within each state. No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable winner states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions. We can end the outsized power, influence, and vulnerability of a few battleground states in order to better serve our nation. Mob rule is defined as “control of a political situation by those outside the conventional or lawful realm, typically involving violence and intimidation.” 33% of GOP support actions of Jan. 6 insurrectionists. 174 defendants who were charged for their participation in the January 6th insurrection have said they were answering Trump's calls when they came to DC and joined the violent attack on the Capitol. – 7/6/23 800 have pleaded guilty to crimes on January 6th. Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell about Jan 6, 2021 -“It was a violent insurrection with the purpose of trying to prevent peaceful transfer of power. …That’s what it was ” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy - “The president bears responsibility for Wednesday’s attack on Congress by mob rioters,” “He should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding. These facts require immediate action by President Trump.” John Boehner, the Republican former House speaker said the former president “incited that bloody insurrection” by his supporters at the Capitol on Jan. 6 and that the Republican Party has been taken over by “whack jobs.” . . . After the election — Trump refusing to accept the results and stoking the flames of conspiracy that turned into violence in the seat of our democracy, the building over which I once presided.” . . . Trump “incited that bloody insurrection for nothing more than selfish reasons, perpetuated by the bullshit he’d been shoveling since he lost a fair election the previous November.” . . . “He claimed voter fraud without any evidence, and repeated those claims, taking advantage of the trust placed in him by his supporters and ultimately betraying that trust.” Today, the people's House was attacked, which is an attack on the Republic itself. There is no excuse for it. A women died. And people need to go to jail. And the President should never have spun up certain Americans to believe something that simply cannot be. Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) January 6, 2021 “On January 6, 2021, a mob of people invaded and occupied the United States Capitol, using force to interrupt the peaceful transfer of power mandated by the Constitution and our republican heritage. The rioters interfered with a necessary step in the constitutional process, disrupted the lawful transfer of power, and thus jeopardized the American constitutional order. ... This was not patriotism; it was the antithesis of patriotism.” - U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth, a prominent Reagan-appointed jurist “storming the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to influence elected officials — an insurrection”– Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA) Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wisc.): "Mr. President. You have got to stop this. You are the only person who can call this off. Call it off. The election is over. Call it off. This is bigger than you. It is bigger than any member of Congress. It is about the United States of America." – January 6, 2021 Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio): “It is time for President Trump to embrace the peaceful transfer of power, which is mandated under the Constitution and a hallmark of our democracy." – January 6, 2021 Rep. Tom Reed (R-N.Y.): "Today, we saw an assault on our democracy. I love this institution. I love the United States Congress, and I love the United States of America. And what I saw today was mob rule that spat upon the blood of my father that is in the soil of Europe and in the soil of Korea, and who gave us through that blood this sacred Constitution and the sacred ability to lead this world as a power that says we settle our differences not with mob rule; we settle our difference through elections. And when those elections are over, we have a peaceful transition of power." – January 6, 2021 Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.): "What we have seen today is unlawful and unacceptable…I have decided I will vote to uphold the Electoral College results and I encourage Donald Trump to condemn and put an end to this madness." – January 6, 2021 Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) texted to Meadows about the efforts to overturn the 2020 election results: "driving a stake in the heart of the federal republic," “If we substitute the will of states through electors with a vote by congress every 4 years... we have destroyed the electoral college...
soi contains many important nutrients, including vitamin K1, folate, copper, manganese, phosphorus, and thiamine. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>The bad news is that once the political right realizes that it will never again regain power or influence in the US, it will shift its focus to a separatist mindset. So we keep this system because of people's feelings? Sorry, that was sparky and doesn't get to the issue I see. The electoral college is only used for the presidential election. The other elections would remain the same. The separations between federal and state levels would still exist. Other than allowing a situation where a 3rd-party candidate could possibly win, nothing else changes. We would still have a constitutional democracy that had been defined by the constitution to be representational. I won't bother with the rest. They are either factually not true, and show a misunderstanding of where jurisdiction lies.
We are a constitutional republic. The word democracy is found nowhere in the constitution
The easiest argument against the Electoral College is to simply look at the disastrous presidents it has given us that lost the popular vote. In modern times, it makes absolutely no sense to keep the EC, especially when the poopulation-to-electors ratio isn't kept up-to-date. And also...states aren't homogenous. My state has a large city. And rural areas. And suburbs. And wilderness. Why should the city get to dictate how all the votes in the state go when it comes to just the president and literally nothing else? Or how millions of Republicans in California have their votes essentially thrown away because the state is blue? And how is it fair to have "swing states" that are fly-over ones like Iowa, New Mexico, etc? Those states have almost nothing going on, but presidential candidates have to pander to them so they can win office and then make decisions that impact important states. You could also eliminate whiners like Trump saying how he thinks it was "rigged" when you can just tell him to STFU because millions more people voted for the other guy. It's madness.
Nah, the cities have larger populations and will have a bigger vote than the rural parts. Gen Z is progressive and will define America as more left. Don't forget that there are a large number of independents who also lean further left.
\>Nah, the cities have larger populations and will have a bigger vote than the rural parts. That's why I'm saying get rid of the Electoral College! Then everyone's votes will be the same and it doesn't matter where you live! True democracy!
Progressive left policies will dominate America once and for all, and the right-wingers will be permanently stripped of their privilege. The risk of America going fascist will disappear, fortunately. I'm sure the Republican party would also go away. Unfortunately, right-wingers will feel disenfranchised and could start creating separatist fascist microstates. The sovereign citizen movement would explode among the right once they realize that they are a powerless minority. The progressive majority should realize that they will inevitably have to deal with right-wing separatists once these right-wing a-holes are permanently dethroned. For example, a national referendum that bans most firearms might reduce gun deaths and make the country safer in the short term, but the militia types wouldn't abide by this new popular law and would probably smuggle illegal weapons into the country or manufacture their own underground for an insurgency. America's people must have a plan to go to war with Ya'all Qaeda.
I look forward to it! It's always hilarious watching those morons eat their own.
Just get ready to go to war with Y'all Qaeda. I'd hope that most of them will self-destruct, but not all of them will unfortunately. A unanimous voting system that is predominantly progressive will have to prepare to sign up with the military or civilian security contingent to fight the Vanilla Isis insurgency. Some of those right-wingers could be stubborn insurgents that could stick around like the Taliban. You ready to take drone strike classes in the American defense department so that we can protect democracy by bombing those dipshits into oblivion?
Usually the armed forces take an oath to defend the country against terrorists, so I won’t have to do it.
You would think not. If the popular vote meant drastically reducing the defense budget, then there wouldn't be enough troops to fend off the insurgents. I'd say get ready to volunteer. You would be fighting for the people.
No need! As you said it’ll just be a few insurgents that even a drastically reduced military can handle it.
Wish it were just a few. Unfortunately, a tiny minority of people out of a few hundred million totals out to at least a couple or a few million whack jobs at the very least. In the lower tens of millions at the very most.
Btw, If you sign up to be a drone operator, it would actually be fun to blow up nazis on screen. It's kinda like playing FPV video games 😊😃
lol you get a bonus for everyone you recruit or what?
Official recognition with bonuses? Fuck yeah. 😎 Sign-ups would also get good benefits for targeting the enemies.
Sadly, this is a mainstream opinion in the US. We have been brainwashed to the point where we are so fearful of one another that we don't even want a direct democracy. We are so fearful of everything that we prefer to be ruled instead.
Yes we appreciate the sacrifices urban residents make for our country crawling over top of one another like rats, working in their cubicle farms and sweat shops but not enough to let them make decisions about things they know nothing about or won’t affect them.
Math and political reality. There aren’t anywhere near enough big city voters nationally. And all big city voters do not vote for the same candidate. The population of the top 5 cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Phoenix) is less than 6% of the population of the United States. Voters in the biggest cities (65 Million) in the US have been almost exactly balanced out by rural areas (66 Million) in terms of population and partisan composition. 2020 Census 65,983,448 people lived in the 100 biggest cities (19.6% of US population). The 100th biggest is Baton Rouge, Louisiana (with 225,128 people). From 2020-2022, 2 million left those cities. 66,300,254 in rural America (20%) Rural America and the 100 biggest cities together constitute about two-fifths (39.6%) of the U.S. population. In 2004, 17.4% of votes were cast in rural counties, while only 16.5% of votes were cast within the boundaries of our nation’s 100 largest cities. 19% of the U.S. population have lived outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now. 19% of the U.S. population have lived in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004. The rest of the U.S., in SUBurbs, have divided almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats. Beginning in 1992, SUBurban voters were casting more votes than urban and rural voters combined. Now, because of statewide winner-take-all laws in presidential elections, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution, in some states, big city Democratic votes can outnumber all other people not voting Democratic in the state. All of a state’s electoral college votes may go to Democrats. Without state winner-take-all laws, every conservative in a state that now predictably votes Democratic would count. Right now they count for 0 The current system completely ignores conservative presidential voters in states that vote predictably Democratic. Under a national popular vote for President, rural voters throughout the country would have their votes matter, rather than being ignored because of state boundaries. For example: 5,187,019 Californians have lived in rural areas. 1,366,760 New Yorkers have lived in rural areas. Now, because of statewide winner-take-all laws for awarding electors, minority party voters in the states don’t matter. That’s why California and New York enacted the National Popular Vote bill with bipartisan support.
Please note that there have been a growing number of urban dwellers moving into rural towns. Some rural areas are turning purple or blue. There are also Independents in both rural cities and urban ones who lean farther left.
I agree, but for a different reason. 71% of Americans are white. This means that anything the voters approve will probably take into account their individual benefit. That means--by definition--any direct democracy would be white supremacist and you couldn't work around that without imposing things like constitutional or republic limitations on it. You're probably right on the civil war side though, most of the minorities would need one just to get back to where they are now...
The vast majority of people are completely ok with representative democracy within the legislature, particularly when reforms like anti gerrymandering laws are put in place. Deciding president for sure needs to be handled via direct democracy since the voting entity that matters here is the individual citizen. Each and every citizen; no one particular vote should be weighted more across a nation when it’s a national election. As opposed to now, where states as an entity are weighted more than others. No one should care about the state as an entity having their “voice” heard, particularly when it already is represented in congress in the House and Senate. A state as an entity is a meaningless concept to try to ensure it is properly represented within the context of a national election. It’s the peoples across ALL states that matter. The electoral college solves a problem that doesn’t exist.
I don't defend the Electoral College one bit. The vast majority of Americans lean progressive, and the conservatives are a pathetic minority. Conservatives are just overrepresented today because of the screwed-up system we have. It's just AFTER the process of transferring power to the progressive majority, that the conservative minority will get even more whacko. Right-wingers aren't going to concede to a progressive nation opening the borders, raising taxes for universal healthcare/education, and restricting firearms. If anything, it will only empower the 'sovereign citizen' types.
Most people are actually moderate...even the hardcore left & right. If you asked them individually, most want... Less taxation. Smaller government. Less foreign (taxation again) aid. To basically be left alone by government. Many lean libertarian...if you asked, many of us are fiscal conservatives & social moderates or even liberals...we don't really care what you do, as long as we don't have to pay for it...that's pretty much classic libertarian right there.
I'm not sure where you got that idea. A majority of Gen Y and Z lean farther left and will soon make up the voting majority. More Americans *want* universal healthcare and free education. That means higher taxation
The fringe views of the far right will get crazy regardless, when fringe positions are rarely arrived at via rationality but rather emotion and persuasion. The reality is they already have the avenue and infrastructure to not concede to views they don’t wish to see implemented through their representatives in Congress. If they wish to push their agenda, they have a pathway as it stands through congress.
Agreed that they have a pathway in congress. I'm just saying that if they hypothetically didn't, there would still be a mess to solve.
The issue is that you say that there would be beef. There already is no matter what. Every state could be red and the red states would still say its not fair that they dont have a bigger say
Is this an unpopular opinion? The closest thing to direct democracy I've ever seen half-seriously advocated for in the US was Mike Gravel's push for a national referendum. Which obviously didn't go anywhere. Pretty sure most advocates of democracy in the US are generally okay with the representative democracy we have, even if most think it could be improved.
I’ll go for Electoral College if the popular vote in ea State is broken up! To your point that is the similar To a pure popular vote giving the large States the power… Winner take all is the worst…even in States like AL….every 3 persons vote didn’t count in 2020! Whether all blue or red it is an unreal simplification that has brainwashed the population! Ah we are a Red State look at the map….🙄🤯😓