ADVERTISEMENT

What Pro-Democracy Changes Would You Like to See for America?

What was the difference in popular vote between Clinton and Trump? What was the difference in California? That is why the electoral college is important.
 
What was the difference in popular vote between Clinton and Trump? What was the difference in California? That is why the electoral college is important.
No, the electoral college goes against the will of the majority. End of story. It’s a national election and countless votes are not counted by this antiquated system. It’s a fvcking joke.
 
Then why even have states? Just make everything national. Why do we need 50 different flavors?
we have states for more localized governance that make sense for that region. The president and federal government represent us all. There’s no goddamn reason to still have the electoral college. None. Funny how it’s typically cons that defend it, hmmm, I wonder why?
 
I think the first part of this paragraph is an interesting idea. The last sentence doesn't make sense. You want the state to be decided similar to the Electoral college instead of the popular vote?
There is further explanation of that plan in the link I provided in post #16 above if you're interested. A couple of other alternatives as well.
 
we have states for more localized governance that make sense for that region. The president and federal government represent us all. There’s no goddamn reason to still have the electoral college. None. Funny how it’s typically cons that defend it, hmmm, I wonder why?

There are a lot of very good reasons for the electoral college. It's just coincidence that the dems have ended up on the losing side recently.
 
There are a lot of very good reasons for the electoral college. It's just coincidence that the dems have ended up on the losing side recently.
Please, expand on all of the “very good reasons” I’d love to hear them
 
Good thing you weren’t a founding father.

They lived in a different reality, in which people had less mobility and identified themselves by their state far more than their country. They also left slavery intact, and denied women the vote, so it’s not exactly as if the Constitution had no room for improvement.
 
There are a lot of very good reasons for the electoral college. It's just coincidence that the dems have ended up on the losing side recently.
Recently, as in the last 30 years?

If anything, they should at least remove the 100 EC votes that the Senate represents. Small states like WY and VT basically triple their number of EC votes ( from 1 to 3) where larger states like CA and TX basically increase their EC votes by roughly 2-3%, not the 300% advantage the small states get.

When it comes to the Senate it's bad enough that the GOP has as many seats as the Dems when the Dems represent about 40 million more people and then they utilize the filibuster to block any meaningful legislation that would benefit the country. The Senate does not represent the will of the majority of the people but instead leads to minority rule.
 
There are a lot of very good reasons for the electoral college. It's just coincidence that the dems have ended up on the losing side recently.

But the minority has recently achieved a position where they can exert tyranny on the rest of the country to the extent that they can make elections a mere formality, with legislatures disregarding results they don’t like. You are clinging to a single remnant of the Constitution that is going to be the undoing of the entire document.
 
Not shocking that those that aren't positive contributors to society think they should have equal voice to those of us that are.
Let’s say a person is an EMT making $15 an hour. Works a bunch of overtime and pulls down 60k a year. However, has a couple of kids and pays little federal income taxes. Now let’s say that another person inherited a bunch of money from aunt Cecilia and pays large amounts of capital gains taxes. Who contributes more to society?
 
  • Like
Reactions: IACub and blhawk
Let’s say a person is an EMT making $15 an hour. Works a bunch of overtime and pulls down 60k a year. However, has a couple of kids and pays little federal income taxes. Now let’s say that another person inherited a bunch of money from aunt Cecilia and pays large amounts of capital gains taxes. Who contributes more to society?
Don’t try to engage golfing in any kind of logical debate. Dude’s a nut.
 
  • Like
Reactions: littlez and blhawk
There are a lot of very good reasons for the electoral college. It's just coincidence that the dems have ended up on the losing side recently.
The electoral college was founded because of slavery. The "small state" issue is solved by the United States Senate. It was founded for the sole purpose of granting some electoral weight to states with slaves. That’s all. The only reason that Republicans support it is it’s the only way the can win the White House.

Name one reason that a cowboy in Wyoming should have more of a say in who lives in the White House than a banker from New York.
 
The dirt argument you try to make doesn’t hold water. Depending on where people live in the US, they are different cultures from those in other areas. Just because a very large population chooses to reside along the east and west cost does not mean they should be able to dictate how those in the “fly over” country should have to live. You get that with the house, but the senate is set up so that each state has an equal say.
This is a bizarre argument. Besides aligning with your politics, how does it make sense that a minority of people who happen to not live in more densely populated areas should dictate policy to the majority? The vote of every person in a federal election should be equal, regardless of where they live.
 
This is a bizarre argument. Besides aligning with your politics, how does it make sense that a minority of people who happen to not live in more densely populated areas should dictate policy to the majority? The vote of every person in a federal election should be equal, regardless of where they live.
Exactly.

Cons sometime prattle on about the alleged dangers of "tyranny of the majority" but they are quick to defend the current blatantly antidemocratic arrangement, which is really a kind of tyranny of the minority.
 
The idea that dirt is more important in deciding elections than people is something I simply cannot grasp. The notion that your vote should hold more power if you live in a small state than if you live in a large state baffles me.
Can you think of reasons that small states only agree to unions with large states under voting arrangements that recognize the importance and value of sovereignty?

It is impossible to support such an anti- democratic, unfair, and outdated idea unless it happens to benefit you. And then only if you care nothing about fairness and equity, it rather only care about yourself.
What if you care about diversity? Mere majoritarianism as an overriding political concept baffles me.
Majoritarian uber alles isn’t the Republican concept our union was formed under, where states together decided collective issues like foreign wars and trade, under an umbrella of internal free trade and travel, with state laws varying to best address issues as seen fit in those locales.
I prefer 50 laboratories of democracy to try (with success and failures among their peers to compare to!) and find the political trade offs that are most acceptable. A competitive, instead of monopolistic, approach is going to yield better satisfaction for more, faster.

Another common theme in these attempts to save democracy is to abolish the mechanism that creates ‘minority majority’ districts that are about the only way we see racial minorities get seats in Congress. Unintended consequence?

Last but not least, many of y’all ain’t fond of the first amendment.
 
This thread has more anti-democratic ideas than ones that would increase democracy. Plus a lot that are unconstitutional. SMH.
Unconstitutionality is a red herring. To anyone with a brain, some of the suggestions would require amending the constitution. The question isn't whether they are constitutional, it's whether they are good for democracy.

As for your claim that some suggestions are anti-democratic, maybe you're right. Why don't you point them out so we can discuss them.

Personally, I'm not a fan of term limits, but a lot of people like that idea - which is why I included it on my original list.

What else?
 
1) an amendment to the constitution requiring every state, every ten years, to put forth a ballot initiative asking if the citizens want a constitutional convention. (This would ensure we could always address governments systemic failures over time)

2) a total ban on gerrymandering.

3) ranked choice voting in national primaries. No more Iowa caucus decides for the rest of us.
 
Unconstitutionality is a red herring. To anyone with a brain, some of the suggestions would require amending the constitution. The question isn't whether they are constitutional, it's whether they are good for democracy.

As for your claim that some suggestions are anti-democratic, maybe you're right. Why don't you point them out so we can discuss them.

Personally, I'm not a fan of term limits, but a lot of people like that idea - which is why I included it on my original list.

What else?
Requiring people to vote is the antithesis of democracy, if one believes that political freedom is an essential component of democratic governance. Nonvoting can also an expression of free speech.
 
Nonvoting can also an expression of free speech.
Again, freedom, not democracy.

If voting is mandatory there should always be a "none of the above" option or something like that.

What we are talking about is cost vs benefit. If you believe that democracy is very important, then the trivial cost of having to cast a ballot every couple of years is an easy tradeoff to justify.

By the way, if you have a NOTA option and NOTA wins, that opens up even more pro-democracy possibilities. I mean if you can't even beat NOTA, you have no business being in office, do you.
 
1) an amendment to the constitution requiring every state, every ten years, to put forth a ballot initiative asking if the citizens want a constitutional convention. (This would ensure we could always address governments systemic failures over time)

2) a total ban on gerrymandering.

3) ranked choice voting in national primaries. No more Iowa caucus decides for the rest of us.
Definitely on board with 2 and 3.

In principle I like #1, too, but the problem is who gets to control the constitutional convention?

Right now the Right is pushing for a constitutional convention. In big part because they are pretty sure they can control it.

Of course they may not need one if their SCOTUS keeps slicing away the parts that corporations and religions don't like.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BanjoSaysWoof
Again, freedom, not democracy.

If voting is mandatory there should always be a "none of the above" option or something like that.

What we are talking about is cost vs benefit. If you believe that democracy is very important, then the trivial cost of having to cast a ballot every couple of years is an easy tradeoff to justify.

By the way, if you have a NOTA option and NOTA wins, that opens up even more pro-democracy possibilities. I mean if you can't even beat NOTA, you have no business being in office, do you.
Nota is not equal to a refusal to vote as a form of protest. Good luck getting rid of the first amendment.

Democracy without liberty is unimaginable for me. It's not really democracy.

You vill vote, dummkopf!
 
  • Like
Reactions: jamesvanderwulf
Definitely on board with 2 and 3.

In principle I like #1, too, but the problem is who gets to control the constitutional convention?

Right now the Right is pushing for a constitutional convention. In big part because they are pretty sure they can control it.

Of course they may not need one if their SCOTUS keeps slicing away the parts that corporations and religions don't like.

The details of the convention administration would be a nightmare. I will concede that. I just want a law saying we the people every ten years get a right to decide if we think we need a convention.

that the right is doing it now shows it’s become a tool for the parties. This amendment concept, as flawed as it is, would aim to give a Choice to people to ask directly for a convention and not rely exclusively professional political operatives.
 
This is the 21st century.

That vile compromise made sense back at the founding. It doesn't now.
Why did the EU include such a ‘vile compromise’ as to ascribe equal representation among members with vastly different populations?
Why would Estonia demand an equal voice to France instead of 1/49th the representation that their relative population dictates?
What year is it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dandh and Coach_Fry
Along with eliminating or changing the electoral college process, I would end attack adds. Candidates can only campaign on policies they support not broad generalities. Their policy platform should be what they sell. No attack adds from anyone including PACs.
 
Requiring people to vote is the antithesis of democracy, if one believes that political freedom is an essential component of democratic governance. Nonvoting can also an expression of free speech.
Australia requires it.
 
ADVERTISEMENT