Democracy is not mob rule

[ttwtt78640]

With respect:

Republicans love the unequal voting-power of the Electoral College because they've been the only winners of the unpopular vote.

That’s a fact. Which makes it obvious that the intent of dumping the EC is to give demorats an advantage.

 

[Crovax]

They refuse to consistently vote blue.

Shit, I didn't know you could vote for colors. I had been voting for people this whole time

Cyan for president 2024

 

[Antiwar]

With respect:

The Electoral College issue is similar to the abortion issue.

If Republicans ever lose the presidency due to the Electoral College, it'd be lynched before sundown.

If men could get pregnant, abortion rights would be more popular with conservatives than the 2A is.

Abort the Electoral College.

 

[grip]

We can KEEP the Electoral College however when it exists ALONGSIDE and HAND IN HAND WITH Citizens United, Buckley v. Valeo and McCutcheon v. FEC it becomes a poisonous moat into which ALL democratic efforts are tossed.
My proposal is, they get to pick and keep ONE only, CU, McCutcheon, Buckley or the EC, one ONLY.
They do NOT get to have ALL FOUR together, working as a unit, to blot OUT democracy...which is what's happening now.
Oh and, the Voting Rights Act gets 100% reinstated immediately.

Thanks for listening.

Do you think both sides are trying to blot out democracy?

I'm for the USA's prosperity, not the cons or libs.

 

[Crovax]

The fact you’re fine with whatever gives you power.

I am? Where did I say that?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Shit, I didn't know you could vote for colors. I had been voting for people this whole time

Cyan for president 2024

I was influenced by the colored fish image left in my mind at the time.

 

[aociswundumho]

That's why any strong democracy must have civil protections of minorities. These protections must be enforced even if, especially if, the majority of people disagree with them. This is not anti-democratic, but pro-democratic.

No, shitting on minorities is entirely consistent with democracy. For example, in our democracy, there are lots of people serving life prison sentences for the "crime" of illegal gardening.

The core goal of democracy is to distribute political power and have people be represented in their government.

That is not the goal, nor has it ever been the case. Let's take you, for example. The amount of political power you have is virtually zero. That's your share of the political power in the US.

Don't feel bad, I have exactly the same amount.

Even if at the time the majority of voters supported only men being able to vote, clearly that is not democratic. When the south spent decades restricting and disenfranchising freed slaves, even though it was supported by the majority of people at the time, was not democratic. A democracy must protect it's constituents from being politically disenfranchised or discriminated against to remain a true democracy.

You are trying to define democracy by the outcome you want, instead of how democratic institutions actually work. This way you can claim that all of the bad outcomes weren't "real" democracy. This sounds vaguely familiar for some reason...

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Without some sort of way of evening that out, we end up with little representation for a fair amount of the geographical US. The majority rule is one of the current hot button issues that's plaguing our system. The popular vote should be close to the electoral winner, not completely lopsided. It would be fairer if there was a way to give each method (voters & electorates) some influence over who is elected.

I support federalism and believe the states, as semi-autonomous governments, should receive equal representation (regardless of population) in the senate.

The presidency is a national election. Every persons vote should be equal. Gamifying the election process is not the way to balance state rights.

 

[RedFishBlueFish]

Some of them , you assume, are good people?

I don't even think you understand the irony of your post.

I didn't say I assumed they are good people. I said there are good rural people. Dumb and ignorant people can be good people. Even Maga-nuts can be good people - they are just misguided.

We could have a discussion about the education level of people who voted for Trump opposed to Hillary. Are you familiar with those statistics? Although education is not a direct indication of intelligence, there are good correlations between the two. And even better correlations if you evaluate the lack of education to ignorance.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

View attachment 67399282

Perhaps you haven't seen these maps of the 2016 elections? Republicans pasted them everywhere after the 2016 election to show that "America" voted for Trump. As if the overwhelming amount of red compensated for the fact that Trump lost the popular vote.

Due to the electoral college, obviously rural areas played a huge roll in Trump winning.

However, the average Trump voter isn't rural. The most common Trump voter is a White 50+ year old man with some college who lives in a suburban area.

An examination of the 2016 electorate, based on validated voters

One of the biggest challenges facing those who seek to understand U.S. elections is establishing an accurate portrait of the American electorate and the

www.pewresearch.org

But you aren't addressing my actual criticism, which was you writing off rural areas as just dumb backwards people.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I didn't say I assumed they are good people. I said there are good rural people. Dumb and ignorant people can be good people. Even Maga-nuts can be good people - they are just misguided.

We could have a discussion about the education level of people who voted for Trump opposed to Hillary. Are you familiar with those statistics? Although education is not a direct indication of intelligence, there are good correlations between the two. And even better correlations if you evaluate the lack of education to ignorance.

IMHO, neither Hillary nor Trump were the best candidates that a nation of over 330M could come up with. We the sheeple have become slaves to a rigged two ‘viable’ party system where even, so called, “red/blue wave” congressional elections swap the party representation of less than 10% of “our” 535 congress critters. It is (or at least should be) apparent that the donor class runs the country and offers us candidates of their choice to select from.

 

[grip]

I support federalism and believe the states, as semi-autonomous governments, should receive equal representation (regardless of population) in the senate.

The presidency is a national election. Every persons vote should be equal. Gamifying the election process is not the way to balance state rights.

My fear is mob rule with a populist president appealing directly to the people could command dangerous amounts of power. They barely got Trump out as is. But besides that, I don't disagree with a popular vote.

 

[bomberfox]

Tell me how many small states would a presidential campaign include if there was just a popular vote and then try again to tell me ot wouldn't disenfranchise the smaller states.

Bout as many as now. If you arent a swing state presidential candidates usually dont care about you.

 

[What if...?]

I am? Where did I say that?

In every post.

 

[Antiwar]

With respect:

You wanna talk about tyranny of the minority? A dozen or so Republican state politicians purged voter rolls for years using Interstate Crosscheck. They surely purged enough voters in swing states to "win" the election.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

My fear is mob rule with a populist president appealing directly to the people could command dangerous amounts of power. They barely got Trump out as is. But besides that, I don't disagree with a popular vote.

Wouldn't the correct position to take in order to prevent that be to limit federal power? That seems like the safeguard to advocate for if that is a primary concern. The EC does nothing to protect against populism...unless you believe the electors would be "faithless" and prevent a candidate from taking office by changing their vote.

 

[bomberfox]

Due to the electoral college, obviously rural areas played a huge roll in Trump winning.

However, the average Trump voter isn't rural. The most common Trump voter is a White 50+ year old man with some college who lives in a suburban area.
View attachment 67399287

An examination of the 2016 electorate, based on validated voters

One of the biggest challenges facing those who seek to understand U.S. elections is establishing an accurate portrait of the American electorate and the

www.pewresearch.org

But you aren't addressing my actual criticism, which was you writing off rural areas as just dumb backwards people.

Rural areas are really good for working class support. Its just theres always been a type of southern aristocracy and network thats been propped up by people in those areas since the beginning of this country.

 

[bomberfox]

So you are fine with being oppressed by anything not covered by the bill or rights and incorporated by the SCOTUS?

There are plenty of other ways to do democracy like forming a consensus.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Rural areas are really good for working class support. Its just theres always been a type of southern aristocracy and network thats been propped up by people in those areas since the beginning of this country.

That true, but those systems can be undermined. Some of the earliest strongest union fights were in Appalachia against the coal companies.

 

[RedFishBlueFish]

Due to the electoral college, obviously rural areas played a huge roll in Trump winning.

However, the average Trump voter isn't rural. The most common Trump voter is a White 50+ year old man with some college who lives in a suburban area.
View attachment 67399287

An examination of the 2016 electorate, based on validated voters

One of the biggest challenges facing those who seek to understand U.S. elections is establishing an accurate portrait of the American electorate and the

www.pewresearch.org

But you aren't addressing my actual criticism, which was you writing off rural areas as just dumb backwards people.

Using your data there were 35 rural Trump voters for every 19 Hillary voters. As a whole (you might note I used this term in my original post), the rural voters voted overwhelmingly for Trump. Thus, as a whole they are dumb and backwards. I can't see it any other way. If you voted for a con-man who was preaching racism and fear mongering and who had no experience whatsoever in running a government, and who wanted to tear down the administrative state, then you were either dumb or ignorant. And those same people today support Trump. After he lead an insurrection - they still want him for president. How dumb can they get?

 

[bomberfox]

I tend to think most of these fears about democracy are actually happening right now with the most undemocratic institutions already in place. The filibuster isnt protecting anyone’s rights and never has.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Do you think both sides are trying to blot out democracy?

Nope.

 

[Craig234]

I support federalism and believe the states, as semi-autonomous governments, should receive equal representation (regardless of population) in the senate.

I'm going to question something on that.

As a matter of principle, why should North and South Dakota have twice the power of California in the Senate?

As a matter of practical democracy, why should we have a system where Republicans can exploit money to 'buy' low population states, where media is cheap, and gain great increases in national power by doing so?

There's a discussion to be had about the role of states, but I don't see how the current situation - even just looking at the Senate of the presidency was fixed - isn't terrible.

 

[CLAX1911]

It is often said that democracy is just mob rule or tyranny of the majority. That is not the case. This is nothing but a talking point to derail discussions of things like abolishing the electoral college.

Democracy, a strong democracy, is not a system which allows 51% of people to do whatever they want. The most democratic system is not one which every policy is decided by a referendum. As is often pointed out, what if 51% of people decided to oppress the 49%?

That's why any strong democracy must have civil protections of minorities. These protections must be enforced even if, especially if, the majority of people disagree with them. This is not anti-democratic, but pro-democratic. The core goal of democracy is to distribute political power and have people be represented in their government. Even if at the time the majority of voters supported only men being able to vote, clearly that is not democratic. When the south spent decades restricting and disenfranchising freed slaves, even though it was supported by the majority of people at the time, was not democratic. A democracy must protect it's constituents from being politically disenfranchised or discriminated against to remain a true democracy.

So the next time someone tells you that abolishing the electoral college or some other expansion of democracy is actually somehow authoritarianism, simply direct them here.

Democracy is two wolves in a sheep voting on what to have for dinner

 

[Cardinal]

Tell me how many small states would a presidential campaign include if there was just a popular vote and then try again to tell me ot wouldn't disenfranchise the smaller states.

Land matters less than voters. A President is a leader of people; not dirt.