• 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!

Why Our Country Is So Screwed Up

I like the concept. I have grown to hate the college. But there is no way to do a constitutional runaround, past all the states who's outsized power base will be negatively impacted by reform of the electoral college to a direct democracy system. The amendment cannot pass.

It's not just dead on arrival, its dead before the first political brain cell can reproduce a second political brain cell.
That's exactly what was said in 1899. And then the Amendment for direct voting for Senators passed. A major change to our system of representative government.
 
You could say the same thing about monarchy and autocratic system. "Everyone knows the voter rules and how to work within the system" (and yes, those have voter rules too)

That does not make them any better.
A fair representative government would have one person one vote. All votes would be equal. The way it is now, rural votes count way more than urban votes for president.

We need a government of the people and by the people; not of the land area, by the land area. Millions of people are disenfranchised.

Equal suffrage = better government.

And mind you, those who hold the government in lowest regard are the ones who have the most power over it.

No wonder it is so screwed up!
 
Fanciful fiction which predicts the future is not logical.
I understand it is simpler to disbelieve, but the historical nature of the book isn't fiction, although some parts certainly are.
 
Fanciful fiction which predicts the future is not logical.
There is no prediction, the freewill of the race can take it anywhere.

If I weren't so wrapped up politically, I would ignore it too, but the dynamics of Antichrist come into play and render the ghastly vision.

Surf's up, we've seen two events, the first Seal being the coronavirus and the first Trumpet being Maui burning down, there's one more event about March 2027.

If I was going to sit down and write a book of prophecy, it would be a book of prophesy, not science fiction, or it would be a fake, or incorrect.

The book describes events on the inner level, no-one knows what the outer manifestation, it is too tied to free-will.

Revelation is a time map, and the alien/angelic activity certain, the race is being prepared for Ascension, a new thing, at least for the local, possibly.
 
A fair representative government would have one person one vote. All votes would be equal. The way it is now, rural votes count way more than urban votes for president.

We need a government of the people and by the people; not of the land area, by the land area. Millions of people are disenfranchised.

Equal suffrage = better government.

And mind you, those who hold the government in lowest regard are the ones who have the most power over it.

No wonder it is so screwed up!

IMO, if as someone mentioned, founding fathers attempts at the system was to have only the more educated vote, I'd agree with that. IMO, in an ideal world, we'd go even further than one person one vote and limit it to the more educated - e.g. must have B.S. or B.A. from an accredited US college/university to vote. Age restriction is just not enough. (But of course this will never pass.)
 
I understand it is simpler to disbelieve, but the historical nature of the book isn't fiction, although some parts certainly are.
Anything that predicts the future is fiction. And the book as been wrong on so many accounts it is proven nonsense. The world and the universe are clearly more than 5000 years old. Science has shown this.
 
There is no prediction, the freewill of the race can take it anywhere.

If I weren't so wrapped up politically, I would ignore it too, but the dynamics of Antichrist come into play and render the ghastly vision.

Surf's up, we've seen two events, the first Seal being the coronavirus and the first Trumpet being Maui burning down, there's one more event about March 2027.

If I was going to sit down and write a book of prophecy, it would be a book of prophesy, not science fiction, or it would be a fake, or incorrect.

The book describes events on the inner level, no-one knows what the outer manifestation, it is too tied to free-will.

Revelation is a time map, and the alien/angelic activity certain, the race is being prepared for Ascension, a new thing, at least for the local, possibly.
You are just as entitled to entertain these ideas as I am to think it's pure hype and emotion. It is not science. It has no basis in reality.
 
IMO, if as someone mentioned, founding fathers attempts at the system was to have only the more educated vote, I'd agree with that. IMO, in an ideal world, we'd go even further than one person one vote and limit it to the more educated - e.g. must have B.S. or B.A. from an accredited US college/university to vote. Age restriction is just not enough. (But of course this will never pass.)
No, that never will pass. But it is of merit to note that if the intent was to have more emphasis on educated votes then that has not been realized. The current system gives more power to rural voters with less education than urban voters with more education. That in itself makes zero sense.
 
A fair representative government would have one person one vote. All votes would be equal. The way it is now, rural votes count way more than urban votes for president.

We need a government of the people and by the people; not of the land area, by the land area. Millions of people are disenfranchised.

Equal suffrage = better government.

And mind you, those who hold the government in lowest regard are the ones who have the most power over it.

No wonder it is so screwed up!
It still does not go far enough to resolve the corruption of your system. You are still left with voting in what is essentially and can only be a two horse race with winner take all. Meaning you have a dictatorship until the next election. And by looking at history once voted in the political party is then no longer interested in the promises they made to get elected.

The system should change to a form of mixed member proportional style of vote that allows more than two political parties to compete and ends with parties having to form coalitions which then answers the question of Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

And as well the voters get two votes which means greater choice and the ability to vote strategically instead of your usual try to pick the one who does the least harm.
 
IMO, if as someone mentioned, founding fathers attempts at the system was to have only the more educated vote, I'd agree with that. IMO, in an ideal world, we'd go even further than one person one vote and limit it to the more educated - e.g. must have B.S. or B.A. from an accredited US college/university to vote. Age restriction is just not enough. (But of course this will never pass.)
Nor should such elitist thinking be passed. Why not instead finance a better education system so that everyone can have an education not just the wealthy.
 
Nor should such elitist thinking be passed. Why not instead finance a better education system so that everyone can have an education not just the wealthy.

Everyone can have education here, not just the wealthy.
 
Why is our country so screwed up? Why do we have a very mixed up vocal minority that rejects facts and supports an immoral lawbreaker with enough power to challenge sanity and the majority? It is inherent in the way our country is set up. The flaw is in our Constitution:

"The original Constitution was written when democracy meant something radically different than it does today. Over time, Americans have amended the Constitution to make it more democratic, but shortcomings remain. The most significant, in our view, are the hardwired constitutional structures that are inimical to any modern understanding of democracy: the Electoral College, which could put Trump in office without majority support for a second time, and the equal allocation of two seats in the Senate to each state (an arrangement that gives a Wyoming voter 70 times more senatorial clout than a Californian). Reforming those structures would get the country much closer to the one-person, one-vote democratic ideal.

In 1787, few considered the one-person, one-vote principle to be foundational to democratic republican governance. Now it’s axiomatic. In American law, the principle traces its origins to a Supreme Court decision called Reynolds v. Sims, decided almost 60 years ago in an opinion by Chief Justice Earl Warren. “Legislators,” the Court noted, “represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests.” As Chief Justice Warren explained, once you see voters, not geographic units, as the source of democratic legitimacy, it quickly follows that “a majority of the people of a State could elect a majority of that State’s legislators.”

One person, one vote is a standard principle structuring democratic republics around the world. Contemporary commentators on the left and right espouse it. And yet, none of the three branches of the federal government has its members chosen in a manner consistent with this principle. The president is elected through an Electoral College system that encourages campaigns to ignore most states and that sometimes grants the presidency to a candidate who loses the overall vote, the Senate is grossly malapportioned, and the members of the Supreme Court are determined by those two flawed institutions together."

The Atlantic: Amending the Constitution Is Impossible Until Suddenly It’s Not

Changing America’s founding document may seem prohibitively difficult, but there’s a proven path to getting it done.

Ya gotta love The Atlantic. If you're a thinker and consider bigger things than what's currently in the news, you gotta love The Atlantic. What a profound publication.
It is unfortunate you have such a negative view of the greatest country in the world. It is fortunate your ideas are not held by a large number of political skeptics.
 
What does changing state borders have to do with it?
Deflection.

Democrats are the ones who won the popular vote but lost to the Electoral College.

Had the shoe been on the other foot, Republicans likely would be happy to consider amending the Constitution to jettison the EC.
 
Why would we want to go back to a failed voting system from antiquity?
What failed voting system?
And there we have it. Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.
Again, what failed voting system? Your coyness has no merit. Why are you so afraid to answer the question?

I, too, would like to find out what "failed voting system from antiquity" @Taylor references in Post #18.
 
We're talking college/university, which is not affordable for everyone in the USA.

Average tuition is $10k / year for public colleges. Average implies there are lower cost ones too of course. After grants and loans, it can easily be $0 for any good student until they graduate and start making money.
 
Average tuition is $10k / year for public colleges. Average implies there are lower cost ones too of course. After grants and loans, it can easily be $0 for any good student until they graduate and start making money.
IF one is fortunate enough to live within commuting distance of a public university (and one's job).

IF one doesn't include books and fees in the total costs.

IF one has a reliable vehicle and money for gas.

IF one is fortunate enough to get a parking pass (not included in the above costs.)

As for "grants and loans": they aren't available to one and all.

Re attending the local public university: where you get your undergraduate degree generally determines the ranking of the graduate school you are accepted into. Which in turn generally determines the ranking of the doctorate program you get into.
 
Everyone can have education here, not just the wealthy.
Yet quite obviously the education many get is held in such low regard by the few elite that some say they should not be voting. Does it matter if everyone gets an education if the quality of that education is dependent on their wealth.
 
Why is our country so screwed up? Why do we have a very mixed up vocal minority that rejects facts and supports an immoral lawbreaker with enough power to challenge sanity and the majority? It is inherent in the way our country is set up. The flaw is in our Constitution:

"The original Constitution was written when democracy meant something radically different than it does today. Over time, Americans have amended the Constitution to make it more democratic, but shortcomings remain. The most significant, in our view, are the hardwired constitutional structures that are inimical to any modern understanding of democracy: the Electoral College, which could put Trump in office without majority support for a second time, and the equal allocation of two seats in the Senate to each state (an arrangement that gives a Wyoming voter 70 times more senatorial clout than a Californian). Reforming those structures would get the country much closer to the one-person, one-vote democratic ideal.

In 1787, few considered the one-person, one-vote principle to be foundational to democratic republican governance. Now it’s axiomatic. In American law, the principle traces its origins to a Supreme Court decision called Reynolds v. Sims, decided almost 60 years ago in an opinion by Chief Justice Earl Warren. “Legislators,” the Court noted, “represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests.” As Chief Justice Warren explained, once you see voters, not geographic units, as the source of democratic legitimacy, it quickly follows that “a majority of the people of a State could elect a majority of that State’s legislators.”

One person, one vote is a standard principle structuring democratic republics around the world. Contemporary commentators on the left and right espouse it. And yet, none of the three branches of the federal government has its members chosen in a manner consistent with this principle. The president is elected through an Electoral College system that encourages campaigns to ignore most states and that sometimes grants the presidency to a candidate who loses the overall vote, the Senate is grossly malapportioned, and the members of the Supreme Court are determined by those two flawed institutions together."

The Atlantic: Amending the Constitution Is Impossible Until Suddenly It’s Not

Changing America’s founding document may seem prohibitively difficult, but there’s a proven path to getting it done.

Ya gotta love The Atlantic. If you're a thinker and consider bigger things than what's currently in the news, you gotta love The Atlantic. What a profound publication.
It's complicated. But Fox news, Rush Limbaugh, and the propagandization of the right wing media environment is top of the list.
 
Everyone can have education here, not just the wealthy.
At a price, no doubt. The biggest lesson being that if you want to get ahead, you're supposed to rip somebody else off to do it.
 
Yet quite obviously the education many get is held in such low regard by the few elite that some say they should not be voting. Does it matter if everyone gets an education if the quality of that education is dependent on their wealth.

Noone said everyone would get education. Many choose not to, which is fine. My only suggestion was they don't get to vote.

At a price, no doubt. The biggest lesson being that if you want to get ahead, you're supposed to rip somebody else off to do it.

I don't get that. You are not ripping anyone off by getting an education. State schools are quite affordable often - at least for better students.

Having said that, I would vote to increase taxes (or better yet reduce military budget) so that we get 4-years free public colleges.
 
It is unfortunate you have such a negative view of the greatest country in the world. It is fortunate your ideas are not held by a large number of political skeptics.
I am going to tell you exactly what is going on here. You're not going to like it, but it needs to be said.

Nice twist there. You took my view that the Constitution is a work in progress and tried to turn it into me having a 'negative view of the greatest country in the world.' What BS. Total straw man. Apparently you like things just the way they are. You want the votes of poorly educated rural people to be worth more than those of well educated urban people because those poorly educated rural people are easier to manipulate with emotional appeals. It's easy to get them to hate our government. You like this system where all votes are not equal because you support those who exploit the differences to get power and satisfy their greed.

Let's break that down a bit further. If we are the greatest country in the world then we are already great. That means we do not have to make America great again because we are already there. That means Donald is full of crap and nobody should vote for him. That makes sense because he is a proven liar, an insurrectionist, a rapist, a cheat, a fraud, and a convict. A jury of his peers unanimously rejected his defense that he didn't cheat on his wife, have sex with a porn star, and then pay her hush money to illegally influence the 2016 election because he thought it would be devastating to his election after the release of the Access Hollywood tape in which he was caught saying he likes to grab women by the *****, and that he thought since he was a big star they would let him.

Basically, Donald got away with cheating his way into the white house in the first place. If that had come out about the same time that Comey made his infamous public statement, Hillary might have won the 2016 election.

As to the second sentence of your post, that is also wrong. The ideas I posted are not mine. I read them at the Atlantic so it is obvious they are indeed held by a large number of people. And the skeptics are those who think the Constitution ratified in 1789 should serve for America in 2024 and never need amending. We have amended our Constitution many times. Nothing is frozen in stone. The idea that we could amend our Constitution again to better approach the concept of one person one vote has great merit. It certainly does not represent the straw man of 'a negative view of America.' (total BS) It would remove a troublesome undue advantage which is giving power to those who are not being responsible with it, and it would help preserve our nation in the long run.

The problem with things they way they are is hello, our nation is being ripped apart by this favoritist system that was originally created to appease the slave holders. They lost that struggle and their descendants should lose this imbalanced political advantage currently being exploited by a con man and a convict.
 
Deflection.

Democrats are the ones who won the popular vote but lost to the Electoral College.

Had the shoe been on the other foot, Republicans likely would be happy to consider amending the Constitution to jettison the EC.
There was no deflection at all in an honest question. Your post was overly brief and did not adequately elaborate your point. Nobody is talking about state borders. It is not readily apparent what state borders even has to do with the discussion.

But you do make a good point in that whichever party bore the brunt of an unfair election result due to the EC would want to abolish it. That in itself indicates it is not working well for us.
 
I, too, would like to find out what "failed voting system from antiquity" @Taylor references in Post #18.
If you read the linked OP article it answers that question.
 
Average tuition is $10k / year for public colleges. Average implies there are lower cost ones too of course. After grants and loans, it can easily be $0 for any good student until they graduate and start making money.
Those loans could be so expensive the borrower could be paying on them for years whether they achieve a high paying degree or not. This often makes it extremely difficult for borrowers to buy a home, the one thing which allows most Americans to achieve a modicum of wealth. The system created by the super-wealthy wants borrowers making payments and paying rent for life.
 
Back
Top Bottom