• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Minority Rule Cannot Last in America

EMNofSeattle said:
The “minority” largely does not wish to be governed by this “majority” who if they had their way would exempt criminals from all criminal laws based on the color of their skin, pack them in our neighborhoods then remove the police, the confiscate our stuff. Your position is morally evil and no popular opinion support can ever justify it.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what the minority thinks.
 
As the article says the U.S. has suffered through minority rule continually in various forms and ways. Rather than work towards inclusivity Republicans are betting their political life on division. Through Trump their "tent" has filled with angry people that don't realize they are participating in politics that are completely contrary to their own best interests because those politics are against what they've been conditioned to hate. Right Wing media is doing a much better job of selling hate and division than the "MSM" is doing selling inclusivity and bi-partisanism. Republicans, through gerrymandering and voter suppression are winning the war in rural America.

The GOP, apparently, supports the destruction of the fundamental principles and institutions that have been so long revered; right down to not accepting the results of free and fair elections and a peaceful transition of power. These United States will not survive as a divided Nation, but the Republicans seem not to care as long as they maintain power. And they don't care because money IS power and the powerful rich have bought the GOP and are hell bent on making this a nation not of THE PEOPLE but one OF THE POWERFUL FEW. That Trump has and IS destroying all that we hold dear only plays into the Plutocrats hands and his "base" doesn't care because he feeds their hate.

😔
 
noonereal said:
Your world does not exist. Sorry to be the one to tell you.
Click to expand...

Yeah...you don't actually believe that, which is why you actually can't rebut the points made.
 
element94 said:
No, I still think it's a fair point.
Click to expand...

Not at all. California has more EC votes than Texas. That means that California has more of a say in who is President, either way. You're confusing the fact that California is deep in the tank for Democrats so they are sure to win there and states that are more swing states get more attention because those are the ones up for grabs.

If a candidate wins Texas and loses California, they have to win more states/ECs than the other candidate with what remains to make up the losses. The difference is that if we did a popular vote then the extra 4 million votes from California for Democrats would override the vote spread of nearly every single state the GOP won.

It's not a comparison, not even a little.
 
noonereal said:
you make no points, your posts whine like a child
Click to expand...

You're projecting. Plus history and facts are not on your side. Now continue demonstrating your inability to mount a response.
 
Fishking said:
Not at all. California has more EC votes than Texas. That means that California has more of a say in who is President, either way. You're confusing the fact that California is deep in the tank for Democrats so they are sure to win there and states that are more swing states get more attention because those are the ones up for grabs.

If a candidate wins Texas and loses California, they have to win more states/ECs than the other candidate with what remains to make up the losses. The difference is that if we did a popular vote then the extra 4 million votes from California for Democrats would override the vote spread of nearly every single state the GOP won.

It's not a comparison, not even a little.
Click to expand...
One state has to have the most population, and it's not a given. It didn't help in 2016.
 
element94 said:
One state has to have the most population, and it's not a given. It didn't help in 2016.
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean Texas or Florida was worth more than California. California is still the most EC votes. I never said they only had to win California, though if it was popular vote that would actually be close to true.
 
Fishking said:
Not at all. California has more EC votes than Texas. That means that California has more of a say in who is President, either way. You're confusing the fact that California is deep in the tank for Democrats so they are sure to win there and states that are more swing states get more attention because those are the ones up for grabs.

If a candidate wins Texas and loses California, they have to win more states/ECs than the other candidate with what remains to make up the losses. The difference is that if we did a popular vote then the extra 4 million votes from California for Democrats would override the vote spread of nearly every single state the GOP won.

It's not a comparison, not even a little.
Click to expand...
So what you're saying is white wingers need a handicap in national elections because their policies aren't popular with the majority of Americans?
 
Master Debator said:
So what you're saying is white wingers need a handicap in national elections because their policies aren't popular with the majority of Americans?
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying you're racist.
 
Rogue Valley said:
www.theatlantic.com

Minority Rule Cannot Last in America

It never has.
www.theatlantic.com www.theatlantic.com




A good read and an ideology that I subscribe to. Trump, McConnell, and the GOP will do everything in their power to string-out minority-power rule in the United States for as long as possible.
Click to expand...
How do you define a majority? In an election or almost anything else it is 50% plus one. Neither candidate in 2000 nor 2016 received a majority. There were more votes cast against each candidate than for. So you would have minority rule whoever you gave the election to. A plurality isn't a majority.

Then you have our two party system where roughly 58-60% identify or affiliate with the two major parties. One party makes up 31%, the other 29%, yet they govern over the remaining 70%. They control the candidates, the election laws, everything, yet represent but around 30% of all America. So any way you look at it, we have minority rule. 40% of the Americans are left out of the political process until the general election and then they are more or less forced to choose between two candidates they had no say in.

I think we need to look into a different way of choosing our candidates so 100% of Americans can have a say in who they are instead of 30% for one party and 30% for the other.
 
Fishking said:
No, I'm saying you're racist.
Click to expand...
😢

Is it racist to point out the inferiority of white wing policies on the national stage to the point they need what amounts to affirmative action to keep them viable?
 
RaleBulgarian said:
You think you can prove that our Constitution is “weak”?

Go ahead.
Click to expand...

WANTED: Strong debate opponent

I'm itchin' for a good debate. One or both topics: A. The Constitution is weak. That's my position. You don't have to be in love with everything about the C, but you're taking an opposing side. I'm talking bigger picture, ethical, hows, whys, what it means; not SC cases, not many specifics on...
debatepolitics.com
 
Master Debator said:
😢

Is it racist to point out the inferiority of white wing policies on the national stage to the point they need what amounts to affirmative action to keep them viable?
Click to expand...

It's racist to think you made a point off of ill-informed and inaccurate information because you have some type of stereotypes in your head. Many of the states that would be effected have a higher demographic makeup of POCs than other states, you know, southern states.
 
Perotista said:
How do you define a majority? In an election or almost anything else it is 50% plus one. Neither candidate in 2000 nor 2016 received a majority. There were more votes cast against each candidate than for. So you would have minority rule whoever you gave the election to. A plurality isn't a majority.

Then you have our two party system where roughly 58-60% identify or affiliate with the two major parties. One party makes up 31%, the other 29%, yet they govern over the remaining 70%. They control the candidates, the election laws, everything, yet represent but around 30% of all America. So any way you look at it, we have minority rule. 40% of the Americans are left out of the political process until the general election and then they are more or less forced to choose between two candidates they had no say in.

I think we need to look into a different way of choosing our candidates so 100% of Americans can have a say in who they are instead of 30% for one party and 30% for the other.
Click to expand...
Excellent commentary!
 
Fishking said:
It's racist to think you made a point off of ill-informed and inaccurate information because you have some type of stereotypes in your head. Many of the states that would be effected have a higher demographic makeup of POCs than other states, you know, southern states.
Click to expand...
False state colors ("blue, red"), and skin color don't matter for this issue.
----

There is no good argument for having people's votes worth different amounts depending on which state a voter votes in.
 
Master Debator said:
😢

Is it racist to point out the inferiority of white wing policies on the national stage to the point they need what amounts to affirmative action to keep them viable?
Click to expand...
Excellent, creative commentary! I'm going to use this.

The Electoral College was originally apportioned using the Three-fifths Compromise, which gave white slavers 1 + n (3/5) more political representation. The 3/5ths didn't affect African American voters because there were none.

The Electoral College was and still is Affirmative Action.
 
Antiwar said:

WANTED: Strong debate opponent

I'm itchin' for a good debate. One or both topics: A. The Constitution is weak. That's my position. You don't have to be in love with everything about the C, but you're taking an opposing side. I'm talking bigger picture, ethical, hows, whys, what it means; not SC cases, not many specifics on...
debatepolitics.com
Click to expand...

Okay, you’ve asserted that the Constitution is “weak”, but you’ve yet to explain how/why you think that way,

Please do so.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Okay, you’ve asserted that the Constitution is “weak”, but you’ve yet to explain how/why you think that way,

Please do so.
Click to expand...
I will, when a strong debater takes the opposing position.
 
Master Debator said:
So what you're saying is white wingers need a handicap in national elections because their policies aren't popular with the majority of Americans?
Click to expand...
I'm saying it doesn't matter. The EC isn't going anywhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom