• 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!

Stop pretending the U.S. is a democracy

It would be complicated but not impossible and it would make voting results more reflective of the populations will. Isn't that the goal here?

Take New York for example where all their electoral votes go to the democrat nominee because of NYC despite the fact that upper state ny has a much different political lean to it.

Or Texas where a significant portion of it's residents are democrats but all it's electoral votes go to the Republican nominee.
It’s a very complicated solution to a far less complicated problem.
 
It’s a very complicated solution to a far less complicated problem.
It's not a simple problem. Switching to a national popular vote as some have advocated for comes with it's own problems.

The way to even out the votes is by evening out the states populations. We can also talk about why we capped the house of representatives to 535 instead of continuing to add districts and representatives to a continually growing population. The more congressman we have, the less impactful the senate's 2 electoral votes are to the overall system.
 
It's not a simple problem. Switching to a national popular vote as some have advocated for comes with it's own problems.

The way to even out the votes is by evening out the states populations. We can also talk about why we capped the house of representatives to 535 instead of continuing to add districts and representatives to a continually growing population. The more congressman we have, the less impactful the senate's 2 electoral votes are to the overall system.
I would be fine with removing that cap
 
To a Democrat “gerrymandering” simply means “the seat isn’t drawn to benefit the Democratic Party”
No, it means that the districts are drawn to benefit one party over another, rather than the interests of the voters. Yes, both parties do it, though there is a fortunate trend towards using non-partisan or bi-partisan redistricting commissions, such as in California and Hawaii.

Ohio is an particularly egregious example: the state has 15 districts, two Democratic leaning, two highly competitive and 11 Republican leaning. The Ohio House has 66 GOP and 32 Democratic members; the State Senate has 7 Democrats and 26 Republicans. But according to survey data, 42% of Ohio adults identify as Republican, 40% as Democrats, and 18% as independents. There are even more registered Dems than Republicans in the state.

GOP gerrymandering so grossly skewed the map that voter interests are just not represented.



The Democratic Party has created an ideology where any opposition to them is literal 20th century Austrian painter enthusiasm and they are highly machievellian, they don’t actually care about democracy, anyone can read the saga of proposition 8 for an example
 
To a Democrat “gerrymandering” simply means “the seat isn’t drawn to benefit the Democratic Party”

The Democratic Party has created an ideology where any opposition to them is literal 20th century Austrian painter enthusiasm and they are highly machievellian, they don’t actually care about democracy, anyone can read the saga of proposition 8 for an example
Get a grip. It has been the GOP that was found in court to have gerrymandered so as to disenfranchise blacks with “surgical precision” in North Carolina. The GOP that ended Sunday voting to diminish black votes, that took voting places off of campuses, that said in Texas that one’s gun permit qualifies as valid but student ID doesn’t. They have bragged about this. Demographics they saw, were working against them, so like post Reconstruction democrats in the South, they countered that trend. This is not unnatural, just wrong. I assume that democrats played just as dirty in places like Chicago back in the day, but this is more widespread.
 
What's pathetic and delusional is that you're being challenged on facts that are almost as old as I am.

I know, let's argue about the Spanish American war. That will change the future for sure
I dont even know if the nazis trained their dogs to rape their enemies but Pinochet’s goons certainly did.
 
Most people understand that the electoral college is a farce, giving us two presidents in this century who took office despite losing the popular vote. Anywhere else on the globe, that result would be seen as a seizure of power by a dictator.

But less widely understood is that Congress is an even larger farce. The U.S. House of Representative can lay some claim to be a truly representative body if you discount the distortions of gerrymandering. But the Senate, where any legislation must also be approved, has no such pretense. Every state has the same power, regardless of population.

Thus, voters in Wyoming, the least populous state, with about 577,000 people, have the same political power as the voters in any of the more populous states. If you live in Texas or California, only the first 577,000 people have the same power as those in Wyoming; the rest have no effective representation. So, just do the math to see the national implications. Multiply 577,000 by 50 to give you the population truly represented in the Senate: 28,850,000. The remaining 302,600,000 people (U.S. population of 331,450,000 minus 28,850,000) have no effective voice in the Senate.

Now admittedly, sometimes legislation is passed because the interests of the smaller states and the larger states are the same. Or sometimes the senators from big states will bribe senators from little states with pork barrel projects to pass legislation. Or sometimes Congress will move on an issue because the alternative is revolution, such as with the Great Depression. But all in all, representation is a joke. And any claim that the U.S. is a democracy is also a joke.

Nor is the U.S. a genuine republic, as some conservatives will claim. Even in a republic, laws are made by representatives chosen by the people, not by a process that distorts and seriously limits such representation.

You're missing one very important detail. The federal government was supposed to have very limited power to dictate our everyday lives. Your state is as much of a democracy as those who live there want it be.

I'd bet that most voters in Wyoming would be more than happy to leave you alone if you return the favor.
 
Last edited:
State legislators in states with 75 more electoral votes are needed to enact the National Popular Vote bill.

States with 270+ Electoral College votes are agreeing to award them to the winner of the most national popular votes, by simply changing their state’s current district or statewide winner-take-all law.

All votes would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.

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.

The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual (especially battleground) state vote totals, is much more robust against “pure insanity,” deception, manipulation, and recently, crimes and violence.

If as few as 11,000 voters in Arizona (11 electors), 12,000 in Georgia (16), and 22,000 in Wisconsin (10) had not voted for Biden, or partisan officials did not certify the actual counts -- Trump would have won despite Biden's nationwide lead of more than 7 million.

The Electoral College would have tied 269-269.

Congress, with only 1 vote per state, would have decided the election, regardless of the popular vote in any state or throughout the country.

In 2016, Trump won the Presidency because he won Michigan by 11,000 votes, Wisconsin by 23,000 votes, and Pennsylvania by 44,000 votes.

Each of these 78,000 votes was 36 times more important than Clinton's nationwide lead of 2,868,686 votes.

NationalPopularVote.com
 
Most people understand that the electoral college is a farce, giving us two presidents in this century who took office despite losing the popular vote. Anywhere else on the globe, that result would be seen as a seizure of power by a dictator.

But less widely understood is that Congress is an even larger farce. The U.S. House of Representative can lay some claim to be a truly representative body if you discount the distortions of gerrymandering. But the Senate, where any legislation must also be approved, has no such pretense. Every state has the same power, regardless of population.

Thus, voters in Wyoming, the least populous state, with about 577,000 people, have the same political power as the voters in any of the more populous states. If you live in Texas or California, only the first 577,000 people have the same power as those in Wyoming; the rest have no effective representation. So, just do the math to see the national implications. Multiply 577,000 by 50 to give you the population truly represented in the Senate: 28,850,000. The remaining 302,600,000 people (U.S. population of 331,450,000 minus 28,850,000) have no effective voice in the Senate.

Now admittedly, sometimes legislation is passed because the interests of the smaller states and the larger states are the same. Or sometimes the senators from big states will bribe senators from little states with pork barrel projects to pass legislation. Or sometimes Congress will move on an issue because the alternative is revolution, such as with the Great Depression. But all in all, representation is a joke. And any claim that the U.S. is a democracy is also a joke.

Nor is the U.S. a genuine republic, as some conservatives will claim. Even in a republic, laws are made by representatives chosen by the people, not by a process that distorts and seriously limits such representation.
Gee, another whine about the Electoral College. I will give you credit for knowing that the Senate populated by state, which as you point out, is something that eludes most EC whiners.

This thread is wrong beginning with the title. NOBODY pretends that the US is or is supposed to be a pure democracy, except EC whiners. If it were a pure democracy, big cities would run the entire country, something that the current system was DELIBERATELY DESIGNED TO PREVENT. It was designed to prevent tyranny of the majority, which is what it would almost certainly become:

James Madison worried about what he called “factions,” which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed “the tyranny of the majority” – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could “sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” Madison has a solution for tyranny of the majority: “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”
https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-electoral-college/


Again, the idea is to spread the power around. Of the three types of Federal elected officials, only the president is elected by the EC; the Senate is elected by state, so each state gets equal representation and the House is elected by popular vote, so states with large population get more representation. The result is empowering cultural minorities and promoting diversity, which is something liberals supposedly favor, except when it's diversity of opinion.

Just because the current system doesn't give the results you want doesn't mean it needs to be changed. It certainly isn't going to change. It would require a constitutional amendment and the smaller states would never give away what power they have by ratifying it. So instead of complaining about something that's not going to change, liberals should start offering candidates with a broader national appeal rather than ignoring the wishes of any state that's not New York, California or Illinois.
 
This thread is wrong beginning with the title. NOBODY pretends that the US is or is supposed to be a pure democracy, except EC whiners. If it were a pure democracy, big cities would run the entire country, something that the current system was DELIBERATELY DESIGNED TO PREVENT. It was designed to prevent tyranny of the majority, which is what it would almost certainly become:

Again, the idea is to spread the power around. Of the three types of Federal elected officials, only the president is elected by the EC; the Senate is elected by state, so each state gets equal representation and the House is elected by popular vote, so states with large population get more representation.

95% of the U.S. population in 1790 lived in places of less than 2,500 people, and only a few states let males, with substantial property, vote​

If the 2022 Election Were 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).​

The U.S. Senate and U.S. House and Governors, state legislatures, and local government officials, etc. represent us.

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 Philadelphia) has been only 6% of the population of the United States.

Voters in the biggest cities in the US have been almost exactly balanced out by rural areas in terms of population and partisan composition.

65,983,448 people live in the 100 biggest cities (19.6% of US population). The 100th biggest is Baton Rouge, Louisiana (with 225,128 people).

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

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.

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 to kill it.

Instead, the National Popular Vote bill simply again changes state statutes, using the same constitutional power for how existing state winner-take-all laws came into existence in 48 states in the first place.

Maine (in 1969) and Nebraska (in 1992) chose not to have winner-take-all laws.

The bill will guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in the country.

The bill changes state statewide 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.

States are agreeing to award their 270+ Electoral College votes to the winner of the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC, by simply again changing their state’s law.

All votes would be valued equally as 1 vote in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.

Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population

Candidates would have to appeal to more Americans throughout the country.

Every vote, everywhere, would 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 limit the outsized power and influence of a few battleground states in order to better serve our nation.
 
(Historically) opposition to a national popular vote has been grounded in the desire to maintain white supremacy. It would “allow the honest vote of a white man in Alabama to be neutralized by the fraudulent and debauched vote” of women and Black people.

4 out of 5 voters of color have lived in non-battleground states.

Because of current state-by-state statewide winner-take-all laws for Electoral College votes, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution . . .

Only the few states where support for the two parties is almost equally divided are important.

"Racial minorities, particularly Latinos and Asian Americans, disproportionately live in states that are ignored in presidential elections due to winner-take-all rules for allocating electoral college votes."—FairVote

In the current system, battleground states are the only states that matter in presidential elections. Campaigns are tailored to address the issues that matter to voters in these states.

Safe red-winning and blue-winning states are considered a waste of time, money and energy to candidates. These "spectator" states receive no campaign attention, polling, organizing, visits, or ads. Their concerns are utterly ignored.

In 2016 in the South “whose population was 21% African American, only 13 of 160 electoral votes (8%) were cast for the candidate favored by Blacks,” Keyssar

"More than 28 million of the people who voted for Biden. . . live in America’s red states . . . A majority of the nation’s Black voters, nearly all of whom voted for Biden, live in the GOP-dominated South." Perry Bacon Jr.

“In the South right now, millions and millions of votes by black citizens basically don't count for anything, because white citizens in that state are enough of a majority to always ... win all of the electors in those states. So black voters in the South who vote for Democrats — which means virtually all blacks right now — are essentially invisible in every presidential election. So you see these patterns replicating themselves throughout our history. The people who stopped the popular vote amendment in the late 1960s were Southern segregationists. Some of the people who prevented us from getting to a popular vote in the founding of the country were slave holders. Again and again, the pattern repeats itself.” – Wegman, 3/18/20

The influence of ethnic minority voters has decreased tremendously as the number of battleground states dwindles. For example, in 1976, 73% of blacks lived in battleground states. In 2004, that proportion fell to a mere 17%. Just 21% of African Americans and 18% of Latinos lived in the 12 closest battleground states. So, roughly 80% of non-white voters might as well have not existed when there were 12 battleground states..

In 2000, 58 percent of African-Americans lived in former slave states, where 100 percent of the electoral college votes went to Republican George W. Bush, even though 90 percent of their votes went for Democrat Al Gore. Thus, more than 20 million African-Americans in those states could not produce one elector for Gore, yet 148,000 mostly white voters in Wyoming gave Bush three electors.

The National Popular Vote bill has been endorsed by organizations such as the League of Women Voters, Common Cause, FairVote, Sierra Club, NAACP, National Black Caucus of State Legislators, ACLU, the National Latino Congreso, Asian American Action Fund, DEMOS, National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, Public Citizen, U.S. PIRG, and the Brennan Center for Justice.

Eric Holder, Michael Steele, and Ben Jealous are on the Advisory Board of National Popular Vote to make every vote in every state matter and count equally, and guarantee the presidency to the candidate who wins the most national popular votes.
 
State legislators in states with 75 more electoral votes are needed to enact the National Popular Vote bill.

“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.

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.

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), Gerald Ford (R-MI), Richard Nixon (R-CA)

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.”

, the National Popular Vote bill simply again changes state statutes, using the same constitutional power for how existing state winner-take-all laws came into existence in 48 states in the first place.

Maine (in 1969) and Nebraska (in 1992) chose not to have winner-take-all laws.

The bill will guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in the country.

The bill changes state statewide 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.

States are agreeing to award their 270+ Electoral College votes to the winner of the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC, by simply again changing their state’s law.

All votes would be valued equally as 1 vote in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.

Math and political reality.

The most populous 6 states are California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania and Illinois.

They collectively represent 41% of the U.S. population.

All voters in those states, and all other states, do not all vote for the same presidential candidate.

Even if the majority of voters in each of these states voted for the same candidate, they alone would not determine the election’s outcome

In 2016,

CA, New York state, and Illinois Democrats together cast 12% of the total national popular vote.

In total New York state (29 electors), Illinois (20), and California (55), with 19% of U.S. electors, cast 20% of the total national popular vote

In total, Florida (29), Texas (38), and Pennsylvania (20), with 16% of U.S. electors, cast 18% of the total national popular vote.

Trump won those states

All the voters – 62% -- in the 44 other states and DC would have mattered and counted equally.
 
Well, you were making a certain degree of sense until you exposed your real agenda in your last sentence. You want a permanent liberal majority that can tyrannize the minority. At least you are honest about that.
Your not being as honest about your agenda. Gerrymandering is what keeps many MAGA leaning districts alive. A system that forces the political representatives to represent ALL the people would go a long way to end the bitter division in politics. Of course, the Rabid Right would hate this. They gain a far bigger number of seats by concentrating their people and diluting other political leans.... :rolleyes:

The goal is a permanent logical majority where the likes of Santos, Boobhurt, and MTG wouldn't be elected dog catcher... :cautious:

The change wouldn't affect national elections, the same number of conservatives in each voting district (counties) will still vote, the major difference is the rise of future tRumps will be greatly handicapped... ✌️
 
Most people understand that the electoral college is a farce, giving us two presidents in this century who took office despite losing the popular vote. Anywhere else on the globe, that result would be seen as a seizure of power by a dictator.
Actually, you might need to learn more about elections across the globe.

Both Canada and the UK have elected Prime Ministers with only a minority of the vote more times in the last 150 years than the US has elected Presidents with a minority vote. PMs in those countries, like Presidents here, are voted based on district voting results, not a national vote total. There as here, winning a majority of districts by close vote totals and losing other districts by large totals creates the disparity, so it's not just a function of the electoral college.

For example, Trudeau won his last election in 2021 but lost the popular vote. In the UK, there's this:

1974 election: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_February_1974 (Wilson over Heath)
1951 Election: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1951 (Churchill over Attlee)
1929 Election: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1929 (MacDonald over Baldwin)
1874 Election: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1874 (Disraeli over Gladstone)
 
Get a grip. It has been the GOP that was found in court to have gerrymandered so as to disenfranchise blacks with “surgical precision” in North Carolina.
That’s an opinion and one I don’t believe because there is no disenfranchisement from living in one district versus another.

The GOP that ended Sunday voting to diminish black votes,
This is interesting, because democrats will often demand churches not be involved in politics, unless it’s black churches. Black churches openly endorse candidates and arrange vans to take their congregation to the polls. Something I actually have no problem with, but it is interesting that democrats don’t want seperation of church and state when it applies to their voting blocs
that took voting places off of campuses,
Yeah, why should there be polls on campuses? Most college students have different residences than where they go to school. Given white men without college degrees Vite for Trump maybe we should have polls on all oil refineries and steel works? Oddly democrats haven’t worked to do this.
that said in Texas that one’s gun permit qualifies as valid but student ID doesn’t.
A concealed handgun license in Texas is a drivers license style card with watermarks, photos, and is issued according to a standardized format. And includes address and date of birth. While I’ve never gone to college in Texas, I’ve been to college and my campus card didn’t have any of that information except my name and student ID number, and is not a state standardized format.
They have bragged about this. Demographics they saw, were working against them, so like post Reconstruction democrats in the South, they countered that trend. This is not unnatural, just wrong. I assume that democrats played just as dirty in places like Chicago back in the day, but this is more widespread.
Probably much dirtier than Chicago.
 
State legislators in states with 75 more electoral votes are needed to enact the National Popular Vote bill.

“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.

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.

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), Gerald Ford (R-MI), Richard Nixon (R-CA)

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.”

, the National Popular Vote bill simply again changes state statutes, using the same constitutional power for how existing state winner-take-all laws came into existence in 48 states in the first place.

Maine (in 1969) and Nebraska (in 1992) chose not to have winner-take-all laws.

The bill will guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in the country.

The bill changes state statewide 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.

States are agreeing to award their 270+ Electoral College votes to the winner of the most popular votes from all 50 states and DC, by simply again changing their state’s law.

All votes would be valued equally as 1 vote in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.

Math and political reality.

The most populous 6 states are California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania and Illinois.

They collectively represent 41% of the U.S. population.

All voters in those states, and all other states, do not all vote for the same presidential candidate.

Even if the majority of voters in each of these states voted for the same candidate, they alone would not determine the election’s outcome

In 2016,

CA, New York state, and Illinois Democrats together cast 12% of the total national popular vote.

In total New York state (29 electors), Illinois (20), and California (55), with 19% of U.S. electors, cast 20% of the total national popular vote

In total, Florida (29), Texas (38), and Pennsylvania (20), with 16% of U.S. electors, cast 18% of the total national popular vote.

Trump won those states

All the voters – 62% -- in the 44 other states and DC would have mattered and counted equally.
This will never happen. First off we know there’s millions of republicans in large deep blue states like California and New York who don’t even cast ballots. In 2016 for sure, and likely 2020 as well there was lots of Republicans in blue states who didn’t vote and if they did it would be enough to flip the popular vote in both elections.

There is no circumstances under which California will allow their electoral votes to go to GOP. If this national vote compact happened and 4 million deplorables across the Central Valley and north coast voted, not changing California’s state result but tipping a narrow national popular vote the legislature will go into emergency session. Repudiate the compact, seat the democrat electoral slate, and Gavin Newsom will give a solemn speech about how fascism is on the March trying to use democracy against democracy and California will never support a fascist
 
The people who come out and state “we’re not a democracy” usually do so in the vein of defending some pretty heinous shit that the vast majority of the population doesn’t want or like.
 
That’s an opinion and one I don’t believe because there is no disenfranchisement from living in one district versus another.
There is disenfranchisement. The judge saw the evidence, decided, and I believe the district boundaries were re-drawn, tho a new, GOP dominated court may reverse the earlier court decision.
This is interesting, because democrats will often demand churches not be involved in politics, unless it’s black churches. Black churches openly endorse candidates and arrange vans to take their congregation to the polls. Something I actually have no problem with, but it is interesting that democrats don’t want seperation of church and state when it applies to their voting blocs
So it makes sense to abolish Sunday voting. Steel teal logic. The “souls to the polls” stuff was designed to help those who had troubles getting to the polls, no different than countless GOTV actions in the past.
Yeah, why should there be polls on campuses? Most college students have different residences than where they go to school. Given white men without college degrees Vite for Trump maybe we should have polls on all oil refineries and steel works? Oddly democrats haven’t worked to do this.
So a person who spends 8-9 months on campus, has it as a mailing address for years, is there with 20-30 thousand others, is being spoiled, and existing polling places should be removed.
A concealed handgun license in Texas is a drivers license style card with watermarks, photos, and is issued according to a standardized format. And includes address and date of birth. While I’ve never gone to college in Texas, I’ve been to college and my campus card didn’t have any of that information except my name and student ID number, and is not a state standardized format.

Probably much dirtier than Chicago.
Bottom line: when GOP officials tell you they don’t like it when too many people vote, then use the Supremes decision on the Voting Rights Act to erect or try to erect barriers in scores of ways, believe them.
 
There is disenfranchisement. The judge saw the evidence, decided, and I believe the district boundaries were re-drawn, tho a new, GOP dominated court may reverse the earlier court decision.
They should, the constitution says districts are to be drawn directly by state legislators and contains no mechanism to allow lawsuits to change them
So it makes sense to abolish Sunday voting. Steel teal logic. The “souls to the polls” stuff was designed to help those who had troubles getting to the polls, no different than countless GOTV actions in the past.
Well it is using church to facilitate the political machine of a specific party.

Normally democrats claim to have a problem with that, unless it’s their voters
So a person who spends 8-9 months on campus, has it as a mailing address for years, is there with 20-30 thousand others, is being spoiled, and existing polling places should be removed.
College students who own or lease an off campus residence can go to the regular polling place their non student neighbors go to. Those living in dorms should have to vote in their actual residence area and not on campus.
Bottom line: when GOP officials tell you they don’t like it when too many people vote, then use the Supremes decision on the Voting Rights Act to erect or try to erect barriers in scores of ways, believe them.
 
They should, the constitution says districts are to be drawn directly by state legislators and contains no mechanism to allow lawsuits to change them
There doesn’t have to be a mechanism specified to challenge what has been done. So you say that if a legislature draws districts that have the unmistakable effect of reducing the power of black voters, say selecting an urban black neighborhood in part of a city and combining it with white rural towns across the state instead of the rest of the city, that is not actionable? I think not.
Well it is using church to facilitate the political machine of a specific party.

Normally democrats claim to have a problem with that, unless it’s their voters
You still haven’t explained why they would abolish Sunday voting. Would you also ban giving people rides to the polls, volunteer GOP organized get-out-the-vote efforts in conservative areas?
College students who own or lease an off campus residence can go to the regular polling place their non student neighbors go to. Those living in dorms should have to vote in their actual residence area and not on campus.
Answer a simple question: why would one party, the GOP, seek to prohibit the installation of or or remove of existing polling places on or near campuses? One place in Texas had the second highest turnout in the state.

Again, if GOP officials tell you they don’t like it when too many people vote, why don’t you believe them?
 
There doesn’t have to be a mechanism specified to challenge what has been done. So you say that if a legislature draws districts that have the unmistakable effect of reducing the power of black voters, say selecting an urban black neighborhood in part of a city and combining it with white rural towns across the state instead of the rest of the city, that is not actionable? I think not.
Well I mean what you’re really saying is “reducing power of the Democratic Party” which is why you care about the issue. If we’re a society of free and equal citizens under the law then we shouldn’t have “power of black voters” every citizen should be equal in their district
You still haven’t explained why they would abolish Sunday voting. Would you also ban giving people rides to the polls, volunteer GOP organized get-out-the-vote efforts in conservative areas?
Well I think any effort that remotely resembled “souls to the polls” carried out as a mass movement within rural America would be quickly subject to lawsuits, the Freedom from religion foundation would be suing, the IRS would be auditing involved churches, there would be endless think pieces about “Christian fascism” printed in newspapers and on CNN. You think there would be no controversy if Baptist churches in rural southern communities told all their people to vote for republicans and then provided vans to take them directly from services to polling sites? This is a flagrant violation of the law that is not enforced because democrats see blacks as their voters. Polls repeatedly have shown black churchgoers have heard direct candidate endorsements from their pastors at a far higher rate then white ones, so it is likely true that Sunday voting cuts were done to reduce democrats turning out blacks for polls, but it must be understood that most of those efforts are actually based on flagrant violation of the law involving how churches can endorse candidates. No one is blind to this. I really doubt if a Catholic parish had a priest make a sermon naming Joe Biden by name as a “pro-abortionist” then saying “abortion is a sin, and btw if you don’t like Pro-abortion Biden the parish has arranged for vans paid for by the Republican Party to take you to your polling site from the parish and back to the parish at no cost to you” that democrats would be like “oh look at this increase in voter participation, it’s such a great thing, democracy in action”
Answer a simple question: why would one party, the GOP, seek to prohibit the installation of or or remove of existing polling places on or near campuses? One place in Texas had the second highest turnout in the state.
That shouldn’t be allowed. University students not living independently in a university town should not be influencing election results there as they have no permanent connection
Again, if GOP officials tell you they don’t like it when too many people vote, why don’t you believe them?
Well if democrats openly depend on votes acquired by skirting if not breaking the law then why not believe them?
 
-Well I mean what you’re really saying is “reducing power of the Democratic Party” which is why you care about the issue. If we’re a society of free and equal citizens under the law then we shouldn’t have “power of black voters” every citizen should be equal in their district
Yeah, sure. Republicans know how black voters cast their ballots, so they will tend to try to limit their voting. This is by no means anywhere close to what Democrats, faced with changing demographics after emancipation, did in the South from post-Reconstruction to the 1960s, but it is analogous. The GOP got wise to changing demographics after Obama’s reelection in 2012 and did an “audit” which suggested that they start appealing to a more diverse population. Trump’s preaching bigotry stalled that for a while, but perhaps they have learned something and will change.
Well I think any effort that remotely resembled “souls to the polls” carried out as a mass movement within rural America would be quickly subject to lawsuits, the Freedom from religion foundation would be suing, the IRS would be auditing involved churches, there would be endless think pieces about “Christian fascism” printed in newspapers and on CNN. You think there would be no controversy if Baptist churches in rural southern communities told all their people to vote for republicans and then provided vans to take them directly from services to polling sites? This is a flagrant violation of the law that is not enforced because democrats see blacks as their voters. Polls repeatedly have shown black churchgoers have heard direct candidate endorsements from their pastors at a far higher rate then white ones, so it is likely true that Sunday voting cuts were done to reduce democrats turning out blacks for polls, but it must be understood that most of those efforts are actually based on flagrant violation of the law involving how churches can endorse candidates. No one is blind to this. I really doubt if a Catholic parish had a priest make a sermon naming Joe Biden by name as a “pro-abortionist” then saying “abortion is a sin, and btw if you don’t like Pro-abortion Biden the parish has arranged for vans paid for by the Republican Party to take you to your polling site from the parish and back to the parish at no cost to you” that democrats would be like “oh look at this increase in voter participation, it’s such a great thing, democracy in action”
Again, why ban Sunday voting? Messages about voting conservatively may be pretty clear in generally white mega-churches. I don’t see a problem with that. I imagine black churches in the South were pretty clear in their anti-discrimination pro-civil rights messages. MLK came out against the Vietnam war. Those efforts on left and right are not an “establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
That shouldn’t be allowed. University students not living independently in a university town should not be influencing election results there as they have no permanent connection
I can vote in a town fairly shortly after moving there, even if I move out every nine months and come back three months later, and even if I do this repeatedly. My son moved to New Orleans to go to school for four years, then stopped school, then reentered school, sometimes in a dorm, sometimes in a house. (Suppose someone lives in a frat house near campus? There is a cluster of them near where I live, mixed with private houses and multi-unit apartments. Would a polling place be ok there? If someone drops out of school but stays in the apartment, would they be allowed to vote, while their roommate can’t?)

Getting back to my son. While in New Orleans he had to obey all Louisiana laws and New Orleans city ordinances, paying some taxes as well. Why shouldn’t he in the total of 8 years there be allowed to vote there on the laws and lawmakers who controlled parts of his life? I don’t know if there were polling places on campus, but you seem to be ok with removing them if there were.
Well if democrats openly depend on votes acquired by skirting if not breaking the law then why not believe them?
Occam’s Razor applies here. In most cases Republicans benefit when fewer people vote. Their leaders have told us that. Democrats in most cases benefit when more people vote. Both parties act accordingly, and I guess that we are opining accordingly here on DP. No mystery.
 
It would be complicated but not impossible and it would make voting results more reflective of the populations will. Isn't that the goal here?

Take New York for example where all their electoral votes go to the democrat nominee because of NYC despite the fact that upper state ny has a much different political lean to it.

Or Texas where a significant portion of it's residents are democrats but all it's electoral votes go to the Republican nominee.
That is because it has never been the people who elect Presidents. That has always been the responsibility of the State legislatures.

Initially, when they were debating the US Constitution in 1787, they were not going to allow a popular vote for any federal office. However, they eventually compromised on allowing the US House of Representatives to be determined by popular vote. All the other federally elected positions were to be determined by the States.

The Seventeenth Amendment changed that with regard to the US Senate, and made them determined by popular vote. However, the Electoral College was never changed and remains exactly as it was written in 1787. Which means Presidents are still determined by the States and not by popular vote. Only another amendment to the US Constitution can change that. Which Democrats have been trying to do ever since Nixon beat them by the biggest Electoral College landslide in US history at that time in 1972. Not to be surpassed until 1984, when Reagan beat Mondale by more than 97% of the Electoral College vote.
 
Most people understand that the electoral college is a farce, giving us two presidents in this century who took office despite losing the popular vote. Anywhere else on the globe, that result would be seen as a seizure of power by a dictator.

But less widely understood is that Congress is an even larger farce. The U.S. House of Representative can lay some claim to be a truly representative body if you discount the distortions of gerrymandering. But the Senate, where any legislation must also be approved, has no such pretense. Every state has the same power, regardless of population.

Thus, voters in Wyoming, the least populous state, with about 577,000 people, have the same political power as the voters in any of the more populous states. If you live in Texas or California, only the first 577,000 people have the same power as those in Wyoming; the rest have no effective representation. So, just do the math to see the national implications. Multiply 577,000 by 50 to give you the population truly represented in the Senate: 28,850,000. The remaining 302,600,000 people (U.S. population of 331,450,000 minus 28,850,000) have no effective voice in the Senate.

Now admittedly, sometimes legislation is passed because the interests of the smaller states and the larger states are the same. Or sometimes the senators from big states will bribe senators from little states with pork barrel projects to pass legislation. Or sometimes Congress will move on an issue because the alternative is revolution, such as with the Great Depression. But all in all, representation is a joke. And any claim that the U.S. is a democracy is also a joke.

Nor is the U.S. a genuine republic, as some conservatives will claim. Even in a republic, laws are made by representatives chosen by the people, not by a process that distorts and seriously limits such representation.
No need to pretend, the U.S. is a representative republic. By definition, a republic is a representative form of government that is ruled according to a charter, or constitution, and a democracy is a government that is ruled according to the will of the majority. Although these forms of government are often confused, they are quite different. The main difference between a republic and a democracy is the charter or constitution that limits power in a republic, often to protect the individual's rights against the desires of the majority.

This goes into depth.

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic

We have a constitution which formed our representative republic. The framers made the house of representatives to represent the people and the senate to represent the states. As such representatives in the house is determined by population of each state. Each state being represented in the senate has two senators to represent each state. Perhaps the 17th amendment has sown confusion into our form of government as it gave the people the right to vote for senators from their state instead of senators being appointed by their state legislatures. Which the state legislatures also represent the people of their state. Prior to the 17th the people of the state voted for, elected their state legislatures which in turn as representatives of the people of their state appointed the senators to represent their state.
 
Most people understand that the electoral college is a farce, giving us two presidents in this century who took office despite losing the popular vote. Anywhere else on the globe, that result would be seen as a seizure of power by a dictator.

It is a bit farcical but a genuine problem with a first-past-the-post electoral system.
The UK once had an election where the Conservative party won a majority of seats in Parliament, despite the Labour party winning more votes.

But less widely understood is that Congress is an even larger farce. The U.S. House of Representative can lay some claim to be a truly representative body if you discount the distortions of gerrymandering. But the Senate, where any legislation must also be approved, has no such pretense. Every state has the same power, regardless of population.

Do you favor proportional representation and legally recognizing political parties ?
PR might seem to cure this problem of artificial majorities in legislative bodies, but does not come without its own share of problems - particularly in a three (or more) party system.

Junior parties in a coalition government have a disproportionate amount of power, as the German experience shows.

Nor is the U.S. a genuine republic, as some conservatives will claim. Even in a republic, laws are made by representatives chosen by the people, not by a process that distorts and seriously limits such representation.

Whether or not legislative bodies reflect the true spectrum of political opinion in not relevant to whether a country is a "Republic" or not.

Whether a democracy is a (constitutional) Republic or a (constitutional) Monarchy merely concerns how the head of state is decided.
 
Back
Top Bottom