• 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

Peacenik

We Live In Societies
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 26, 2021
Messages
18,881
Reaction score
16,717
Location
USA
Political Leaning
Progressive
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.
 
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.

Excellent analysis. The Electoral College is hopelessly out of date and is resulting in the exact OPPOSITE of what the FF planned it to be. Their goal was to have the president selected by the most educated portion of the populace at that time, namely the influential and educated land owners. Instead, it is now th ignorant rubes of that nation that gain control of the Electoral College selectees.
 
The Electoral College system stems more from pragmatism and efficiency. It's also symbolic of state's stature, rights and autonomy. Everyone knows the voter rules and how to work within the system. I really don't see a problem with it.
 
The Electoral College system stems more from pragmatism and efficiency. It's also symbolic of state's stature, rights and autonomy. Everyone knows the voter rules and how to work within the system. I really don't see a problem with it.

That is just excuse-making for an outdated system that rejects the popular vote in favor of what is basically a gerrymandered system. None of your claims make any real sense.
 
Americas motto is "outdated" lol

We're young and learning not all of our gears work as intended. It's a slow mend.
 
That is just excuse-making for an outdated system that rejects the popular vote in favor of what is basically a gerrymandered system. None of your claims make any real sense.
Are we talking about the national election? When was the last time we changed a state's border? I would argue that it's your claim that makes no sense.
 
Last edited:
The Electoral College system stems more from pragmatism and efficiency. It's also symbolic of state's stature, rights and autonomy. Everyone knows the voter rules and how to work within the system. I really don't see a problem with it.
No, it doesn't. It was required to give resentful rural people extra power in order to get the rural power junkies (the slave owners) to agree to be in a union:

"These antidemocratic structures have an odious historical pedigree. The Electoral College and the composition of the Senate resulted from compromises required to get slave states to agree to the Constitution by overweighting the influence of those states." (OP link)

It now appears to be well on it's way to destroying the very idea of a democracy. It has not worked out real well to have outsized power for easily-led foolish people.
 
That is just excuse-making for an outdated system that rejects the popular vote in favor of what is basically a gerrymandered system. None of your claims make any real sense.
They make perfect sense to those looking to justify outsized power for some, namely them.
 
Are we talking about the national election? When was the last time we changed a state's border? I would argue that it's your claim that makes no sense.
What does changing state borders have to do with it?
 
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?
And we have the other side literally claiming that a man suffering from cognitive impairment, and who cannot reliably think and speak clearly, is qualified to serve four more years in what is arguably the most important and demanding job on the planet and you believe it’s only the the far right that “rejects facts?”

No, what’s wrong with our country is that too many people believe as you do: that only the other side has the crazies.
 
Are we talking about the national election? When was the last time we changed a state's border? I would argue that it's your claim that makes no sense.
Theses boarders?
1720365854509.webp
 
Our Country is so screwed up because it is the White Horse Tribulation 2020-2030.5, a time of testing, decision and deception.

Hopefully things will get better.
 
Our Country is so screwed up because it is the White Horse Tribulation 2020-2030.5, a time of testing, decision and deception.

Hopefully things will get better.
Not buying it. I do not believe in the Bible. It is a work of fiction.
 
Are we talking about the national election? When was the last time we changed a state's border? I would argue that it's your claim that makes no sense.

The point is that the use of the Electoral College has the same results as gerrymandering in that it gives certain voters more power with respect to other voters. The president should be “of the people” as the result of the popular vote and not “of the states” as is done through the Electoral College. It s an outdated system that has been turned on its head.
 
Why would we want to go back to a failed voting system from antiquity?
 
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.
 
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?
 
The Electoral College system stems more from pragmatism and efficiency. It's also symbolic of state's stature, rights and autonomy. Everyone knows the voter rules and how to work within the system. I really don't see a problem with it.

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.
 
The point is that the use of the Electoral College has the same results as gerrymandering in that it gives certain voters more power with respect to other voters. The president should be “of the people” as the result of the popular vote and not “of the states” as is done through the Electoral College. It s an outdated system that has been turned on its head.
The article is awesome. It explains that our nation faced a huge Constitutional crisis in the late 1800s, and against all odds, managed to amend the Constitution to address it. Maybe it's time to do it again. The Senate had become a mess in the late 1800's because of the original provision of the Constitution which gave state legislatures the power to select US Senators. That didn't work out very well at all.

Now, we can see that the electoral college and the 2 Senators per State things are not working out very well at all either.
 
Back
Top Bottom