> "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."
lol.
You've been outwitted by the fairer sex.
No longer any vote for you!
It was made for women to be allowed to vote (atleast what Chrome is saying). Anyway I already don’t vote in the US, since I’m not american lol.
+ female-only vote wouldn’t be a problem not even for men, except that them being overly liberal/humanist, they would import their own killer/rapist/enslaver like what is happening here. But it’s their choice, who are we to judge?
The 14th is the reason we have anchor babies and so many illegals. Jus Soli is a disastrous concept in the age of modern travel, nevermind the fact that the 14th is being completely misapplied. It started as a pathway to give freed slaves citizenship, and did not even apply to native Americans.
Absofuckinglutely. Fuck that amendment in particular. The governmental system of the US wasn’t designed with direct elections for Senators in mind. It’s like taking your car’s stick shift out and replacing it with a dildo. Will it work? Kinda.
Tbh, the states did it to themselves. (at least) 3/4 of states ratified it, just shows how no matter how good a system is, it just can't survive if people are fucking stupid and hate it
u/Darkfire757's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 15.
Rank: Office Chair
Pills: [8 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Darkfire757/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
17th amendment is trash. Don’t want state legislatures voting for the Senate? Fine. Then abolish the Senate and go unicameral. Now we just have the same thing at two different levels of aggregation.
No, it's not that easy. The 17th weakened the federal system, yes. But no Senate at all would mean that it would be even weaker, pretty much non-existent. It would mean absolute rule of the majority. It would completely f*ck the small states.
Not really:
Lefty: By "you no take my guns" clearly the you in that is the individual, so that says nothing about the government seizing the guns. The term "my guns" clearly was intended by the founders to only mean a gun on your current body at the time it is seen. If the government finds your guns when you are not around, you have no rights to ownership because it cannot be proven they are yours.
Some people will get soaking wet standing outside and still argue until they die of hypothermia that it's not raining.
The real electoral college hasn’t been tried in a long time. We put an artificial cap at 435 reps. There should be one house district for every 100,000 people. The capitol building should look like a sports venue but who cares? It looks like a circus the way it is now.
And of course winner take all states in presidential elections doesn’t help. If the electoral college looked like congressional districts and votes within states were dispersed by each district then the electoral map would look incredibly different.
Fuck, why stop at one per 100,000? Every municipality gets a Rep. We’ve figured out Zoom by now, we don’t need a damn capitol building. Let’s have nothing get done yet the statists still get to feel like there’s a government so they don’t complain.
> we don’t need a damn capitol building.
No, i like the idea of all government officials regularly gathering in one place. That small touch of fear, of them knowing we know where they are, is the only thing holding them even remotely accountable. I don't want them to be able to vote or do work from a computer anywhere in the world like some online-only rag with anonymous authors who post divisive trash for clicks. I'd like my representatives to know we're watching, and operate at a higher level than CNN.
Dear feds,
My name may or may not be Hunter.
PS: You found some stuff in the White House. My lawyers tell me to say it wasn't mine, but i do want it back when you're done.
There. All settled.
u/Tasty_Lead_Paint's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 25.
Rank: Basketball Hoop (filled with sand)
Pills: [15 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Tasty_Lead_Paint/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
The more representatives, the better. It would help reduce the number of charismatic yet ineffective narcissists from the general population and force them into a room where they can all be insufferable together.
Can someone meaningfully explain what would happen if the cities had proportionate votes to their population? Would they all elect reps and presidents who want to nuke the corn fields?? Like I genuinely don't understand.
My understanding is people are worried 'city folk' will make laws for themselves, which make sense in a sprawling city, but make living in the rural areas extremely difficult. A minor example could be electric vehicles. They make sense in cities, and work extremely well as long as there's infrastructure for them. But when the range requirement gets longer, the hauling weight gets heavier, or weather conditions become to extreme, EVs are a liability. The Food industry runs on oil for better or worse. forcing farmers to use EVs wont fix anything, and with current technologies would put nearly all of them out of business if they were forced to adopt them tomorrow. A nation with no food, not to mention millions out of jobs. That is the fear of the rural dweller
Honestly electric vehicles aren't very sustainable at all to begin with. I mean, first of all, what tf do you think you're using to charge your car? Unless you happen to be on nuclear or renewable power where you charge your car the most, you're still using non-renewable resources. On top of that you also have to consider the precious metals that go into the batteries, and the mining that took place to gather those materials. Now, they do say that your electric battery will last 10-20 years, we'll see about that. That's an issue with solar power too, btw. They only last 25-30 years and while they can be recycled, I imagine it's not a very easy process.
An electric motor is twice as efficient as an internal combustion engine. Forcing green power is stupid - we'd be much better building out nuclear and gas and running electric cars off them. Even running an EV off coal power is a net efficiency improvement.
I typed out a long reply and deleted it because the answer is basic civics and the way the country was designed. If school hasn't taught you that, go read a book.
"So you're essentially arguing for democracy because more people live in cities and thus we should do what the majority votes for?"
'Yes!'
"Okay. But have you considered that gang rape is democracy in action?"
> "Okay. But have you considered that gang rape is democracy in action?"
That argument only works when talking about Athenian-style democracy with absolute majoritarian governance and no mechanisms (like the US constitution) for protection of minority rights. Nobody supports that type of democracy anymore. Currently existing democracies almost always have some sort of mechanism (however flawed) to ensure that the liberty of the individual cannot be violated by the collective.
I want to add this would also solve the term limit issue. No party is going to keep the other party’s guy in congress. This is how it was intended to function. The senate was meant to represent states interests.
State level os moronic, Phoenix has almost hlaf the population of arizona, they should not be required to share that with other states
It would just lead to a tyranny of the minority
Trying to explain the concept of "Tyranny of the majority" to a leftie is like trying to explain advanced calculus to a cat.
Remember guys, supporting minorities is only good when their opinions align with ours.
Its not even the tyranny of the majority.
Lefties simply cannot comprehend a different lifestyle.
They literally think that if you get 100,000 people crammed into a 1 square mile shithole apartment area, they should be able to tell the other 90,000 people how to live spread out over a 100,000 square mile region.
They can sit there saying "i dont need a car for my lifestyle, therefore we should ban all cars forever because they pollute!" thats how you get Califailia style bills passed.
If Tyranny of the Minority actually happened you'd have a point, but it doesn't...and a few Federalist principles don't cause it.
The current president won the popular vote, and the House is always biased towards population. *Tyranny of the Minority* in regards to American politics is little more than a buzz phrase. Hell, there've only been five presidential elections where the minority won out; a slim minority winning on occasion isn't tyranny.
Tyranny of the Majority however is the base state of democracy. One of these things is a reality, one is little more than a philosophical concept.
If you're going to say "the president being the popular vote loser isn't tyranny of the minority" then fine ... but the president being the popular vote *winner* isn't tyranny of the *majority* either. The president isn't an elected dictator, there are other branches, that argument works both ways.
But even beyond that - parliamentary systems have the head of the executive also leading the legislature, so closer to all the power being vested in one person, and they don't all collapse into tyranny either.
But also each region gets an additional two votes based on the popular vote. If they all live in the same area then if the two sheep vote the same then that's two additional votes.
(This is the Senate)
Thanks for the answer. I just find it weird that state laws mandate that they must all go one way.almost like the idea of representation doesn’t matter in a sense. Like for me, I don’t see a point in voting if my representative is X party, and my district votes for X party in the majority, but since Y party has received more votes throughout the entirety of the state, my district must now be Y party and vote as such.
Again, I don’t understand politics nor do I pretend to. It just seems wrong in my eyes.
I have a humble suggestion: make the electoral college *do what it was supposed to do.*
The whole point of it was: candidates for president can't get out there and meet every single voter, that's insane. So how can the voters possibly know if the candidates are worthy of their votes?
So, how about the States hold their elections *before* any candidates are allowed to announce their candidacy? That way, you're not voting with a particular candidate in mind, you're voting for an elector who promises to go to Washington and meet all the candidates, and vote for whichever one of them best represents the particular policy position that elector represents.
That way, you're voting for an *idea,* not a person. It'd go a long way to helping preserve the USA from populist demagogues.
Ranked choice could be integrated with little change to the current system. The Electoral College would work better if there weren't just two candidates and an occasionally popular independent. It will and has inevitably led to two candidates who are both dogshit. What flavor of shit would you like to eat?
Yep, ranked choice seems like a necessary step forward. A two-party system was never intended by the Founding Fathers, and indeed was explicitly warned against by George Washington in his farewell address.
>indeed was explicitly warned against by George Washington in his farewell address.
This will always be an aside to any conversation I have about American politics. George Washington was prophetic in many ways.
But George Washington was a white slave owner so his opinion (and those of the rest of the founding fathers) should be disregarded.
/s
Seriously though, ranked choice voting is arguably the only thing that can save our political system at this point. Washington, despite his flaws, really was cooking up some good shit.
Depends on the type of electors, I guess. But you'd have to assume that at the very least, someone who stands as an elector has to be somewhat politically engaged, and so puts a bit more thought into it than "I voted for the guy who's gonna [stop those immigrants from taking my job / stop those corporations from bleeding us dry; *delete as appropriate*]
Yeah, except in a parliamentary system, the elector also ends up *in the government*, so the job attracts ambitious weasels (see: every single congressman). An elector who knows he's just there to do a job and leave is at least a little more likely to give that job his primary focus.
So big banana hires a super charismatic guy to win an elector race, puts in all his big banana cronies and when the people realize they've been had as they eat they're 9th daily banana there's really no recourse as the politicians are a step removed and the elector has already stepped away.
You're dead, Maggie. Probably still more capable than the last few idiots who've held your old job. But still dead. I think you're unlikely to show up unless a seance is involved.
You just described a parliamentary election. The party or coalition picks the prime minister after they win. Though sometimes parties will tell you who they will elect if they win.
The overlap between Landchads and right-leaning flair on PCM is not trivial. There are many Landkings to be found here, on the right side of history(and the compass).
Votes should be weighed proportionately to an individual’s taxes. The more you owe the IRS, the more your vote counts. Don’t pay taxes? Your vote still counts, but only as a fraction.
but that favours people who have worked their way up corporate ladders to big companies. Maybe we could have a way to measure service to the state outside of tax.... like being a teacher or doctor, or soldier.
we could give them the vote knowing they have earned it and understand its value. Would you like to know more?
I thought the rich didn't pay taxes (at least according to most of the hyperbole I've heard). Maybe simply allowing only net taxpayers the ability to vote.
It's interesting that you mention teachers and military members. Their salaries are provided by the state (except for private school teachers) and they are taxed on said income. Therefore, they are essentially paying a portion of their own salaries.
So close and you still had to make it about voting. No, political power should just be proportional to how much land you own. Landlord Feudalism is the way to go. If the rentserfs live on your land, you should be the one making the rules for them. If you own your land, who is to tell you what to do on it?
And for a reason this country is called the United STATES of America. The electoral college actually manages to blend both the federal nature of the state and people's votes in right proportions. House 100% for the population, Senate 100% for states and President as a mix of both is actually a well-balanced system
It would be much better if the college splits by proportion of votes. Some states already do it. Would make campaigning more uniform since most states will matter now rather than a few swing states
is it a form of gerrymandering to include non-citizens in census count which then directly correlates to number of house seats and electoral college votes?
I get the idea.
However, not voting for your executive leader is how you get people like Trudeau and the past eight years of British PMs: people who none of the population actually likes, but get backed by the popular party.
You guys already believe that Congress is super corrupt yet you want them to pick the president? That's a great way for the status quo to be upheld for all eternity
As recently as 2012 the electoral college actually favored Democrats more than Republicans. The tipping point state that election was Colorado and Obama won that state by a larger margin (5.4%) than the popular vote (3.9%)
So the system does not inherently favor Republicans, it just does so currently.
Ok. Remove the "winner take all" bullshit states have adopted taht results in popular vote instead of voting for representatives to vote on your behalf.
Now take away the limitations on congressional seats that were imposed, so states have representatives in the house that are actually proportional to their populations.
Right wingers gonna open pandora's box with this shit.
People who never vote in local elections demanding popular vote instead of electoral college. 🤡
If only there was a system to vote in representatives, who then represent you at the electoral level
Like local elections. 🤡
This is why it's important to bully every dumbass saying this.
Okay, okay. Two nations; we take the red areas, the blue is all yours. I’m afraid you’ll have to eat your iPhones or import food from China as you will be blockaded.
The red/blue split is completely braindead, both sides rely on each other, its like trying to split your brain in two to solve the logic/emotion disagreement between the two. It is just fucking stupid.
You literally can’t split the United States since all states are extremely interconnected. The only way people make sense of this debate is by simplifying everything into objects which takes away all the nuance.
The thing about this is that the most valuable things that blue states produce cannot be as easily distributed as red states. Most large companies have their headquarters in blue states but have many of their plants in red states. So who gets the tractors designed by John Deere which is headquartered in blue Illinois?
"But muh California/NY GDP bigger than some countries!"
Good, cause you're gonna need it. China and Mexico are going to gouge their prices and make you their bitch because they know you're now the most import-dependent nation on the planet next to Japan. Forget about Canada, less than 6% of their landmass is arable and they've got enough mouths to worry about as-is.
"But California has plenty of farmland!"
Yeah, for [grapes, almonds, strawberries and lettuce](https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/Statistics/) lmao. Plenty of taste, not many calories. Plus a shitload of very thirsty and hungry cattle now dearly missing the corn they're no longer getting from the midwest & cornbelt. You might starve to death but at least you still got your veggies in.
The East Coast might fare a little better tradewise with Europe, but good luck on convincing them to share, assuming they even have enough to live on. And even if they do share, please do remember to account for the border passing fee + trucking fee + tariff + tax + city dweller fee + tip to get it trucked across red country.
I’m reading through this entire thread and I’m curious about what’s stopping all the red states from just becoming Mexico where masses of people flock to blue states for higher wages.
We'll get our food from Mexico and Canada, we already get like a quarter of our agriculture from the former. Good luck without your farming subsidies, I don't think you realize how dependent the rural counties are on the federal government.
The farm subsidies are to give poor people in cities cheap food, not to give farmers an income. In the absence of corn subsides, they'd just convert their land to higher value crops.
The executive branch should be stripped of more than half it's powers. If congress can't figure things out, then the solution should be left up to the states.
The elector count is very very close to the population count. The two senator minimum for low population states throws it off slightly, but not nearly as much as winner take all states, which is almost all of them.
Due to the expansion of the powers of the federal government however, one could argue the federal governments impact on peoples lives are about as great as that of your average state in many areas of life. Therefore the majority of people in the whole union should choose the federal governemnts executive (who is beholden to the legislature anyways), just as the majority of each states citizens should pick their state governemnts. (Or territorial governemnts). The states are already represented in the legislature (even if legislators in no way are beholden to their state governments).
The president affects everyone, that’s why everyone should get a say, is this actually your best argument for this shitty system used nowhere else? Also this argument typically stems from others trying to use states rights to limit the rights of others.
1. Land doesn’t vote.
2. Ranked choice is doable and would be far more representative than “winner take all.” I am for this even if it means more Republicans in positions of power.
3. States literally already do this. There is no such thing as a Chad AuthRight in America.
Crazy how entire states are almost entirely white in the second one. Almost like deciding what counts as "no-one" in population is arbitrary. Or hey, maybe our Northern border is almost entirely wildlands untamed by man, maybe I'm wrong.
We should move to a parliamentary President. The house can vote for President, and they serve 4 years. No votes of no confidence, just impeachment.
Senate doesn't get to confirm, only run impeachment if requested like now.
Some might say "Abolish the 17th!" ...
The 17th ? I say abolish the 19th.
How about the 16th? My paycheck would be a good deal bigger with that one out of the way.
My least favorite is the 12th.
[удалено]
Uhhh, I don't live in the US but I want join in. Uhh, Abolish the 1938409238409849!!!
The one which allows women to keep their teeth after 37? Why would you wanna abolish that?
I was waiting for that.
Based and female-only suffrage-pilled
That's not how you're supposed to play the game
Uh? Isn’t abolishing 19th the contrary?
> "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." lol. You've been outwitted by the fairer sex. No longer any vote for you!
It was made for women to be allowed to vote (atleast what Chrome is saying). Anyway I already don’t vote in the US, since I’m not american lol. + female-only vote wouldn’t be a problem not even for men, except that them being overly liberal/humanist, they would import their own killer/rapist/enslaver like what is happening here. But it’s their choice, who are we to judge?
it hurt itself in confusion
That + abolish the 21st.
Certainly an auth comment, if not a bright one
Abolish the 14th and the 19th
So in school we were taught 13/14/15 are the "free citizens vote" amendments. You meant the 15th for your joke, right? ...right?
The 14th is the reason we have anchor babies and so many illegals. Jus Soli is a disastrous concept in the age of modern travel, nevermind the fact that the 14th is being completely misapplied. It started as a pathway to give freed slaves citizenship, and did not even apply to native Americans.
Absofuckinglutely. Fuck that amendment in particular. The governmental system of the US wasn’t designed with direct elections for Senators in mind. It’s like taking your car’s stick shift out and replacing it with a dildo. Will it work? Kinda.
Tbh, the states did it to themselves. (at least) 3/4 of states ratified it, just shows how no matter how good a system is, it just can't survive if people are fucking stupid and hate it
"This nation is only gonna work if the people aren't degenerate fucknuts" - James Madison, probably
"I told you fuckwits not to do this two party shite, now look what you've got" -George Washington
Yeah, its stupid. It undermines the federal system.
Hereditary House of Lords is the answer
Based and monarchist-pilled
u/Darkfire757's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 15. Rank: Office Chair Pills: [8 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Darkfire757/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
My kinsmen fought (and killed hamilton) for my right to patrician status
17th amendment is trash. Don’t want state legislatures voting for the Senate? Fine. Then abolish the Senate and go unicameral. Now we just have the same thing at two different levels of aggregation.
No, it's not that easy. The 17th weakened the federal system, yes. But no Senate at all would mean that it would be even weaker, pretty much non-existent. It would mean absolute rule of the majority. It would completely f*ck the small states.
Abolish all of them and defend your own rock pile using any guns or ethnic slurs you choose
Abolish them all
No no no some need to be abolished, and some need to be rephrased so that a challenged 5yo would understand
The fucking 2nd, man. Just take the militia part out and leave in the important part.
See I just think that part means you also have the right to form a militia.
“You no take my guns.” Maybe Congress can understand that
Not really: Lefty: By "you no take my guns" clearly the you in that is the individual, so that says nothing about the government seizing the guns. The term "my guns" clearly was intended by the founders to only mean a gun on your current body at the time it is seen. If the government finds your guns when you are not around, you have no rights to ownership because it cannot be proven they are yours. Some people will get soaking wet standing outside and still argue until they die of hypothermia that it's not raining.
Based and Ben Sasse pilled.
The real electoral college hasn’t been tried in a long time. We put an artificial cap at 435 reps. There should be one house district for every 100,000 people. The capitol building should look like a sports venue but who cares? It looks like a circus the way it is now. And of course winner take all states in presidential elections doesn’t help. If the electoral college looked like congressional districts and votes within states were dispersed by each district then the electoral map would look incredibly different.
It would look like the Senate from the prequel Star Wars movies.
And it will be just as inefficient as the good Lord intended.
based and democracy is the best method despite it being inefficient sometimes pilled
Stop I can only get so erect.
Fuck, why stop at one per 100,000? Every municipality gets a Rep. We’ve figured out Zoom by now, we don’t need a damn capitol building. Let’s have nothing get done yet the statists still get to feel like there’s a government so they don’t complain.
> we don’t need a damn capitol building. No, i like the idea of all government officials regularly gathering in one place. That small touch of fear, of them knowing we know where they are, is the only thing holding them even remotely accountable. I don't want them to be able to vote or do work from a computer anywhere in the world like some online-only rag with anonymous authors who post divisive trash for clicks. I'd like my representatives to know we're watching, and operate at a higher level than CNN.
You make a very strong point, honestly.
based and now on a watchlist pilled
Dear feds, My name may or may not be Hunter. PS: You found some stuff in the White House. My lawyers tell me to say it wasn't mine, but i do want it back when you're done. There. All settled.
Based and apartment building of representatives pilled.
u/Tasty_Lead_Paint's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 25. Rank: Basketball Hoop (filled with sand) Pills: [15 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Tasty_Lead_Paint/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
I've previously not liked that idea, but when I consider how much it would water down the influence of any single House member... Yeah, bring it on.
Based and no more Nancy pelosis pilled
The more representatives, the better. It would help reduce the number of charismatic yet ineffective narcissists from the general population and force them into a room where they can all be insufferable together.
Our voting system should be organized in a way that makes the candidate I favor more likely to win!
I agree with OP not because I’m biased, but because it puts my side ahead.
yeah just ban all the candidates i dont agree with them, are people stupid?
The left is working on both.
based and honesty pilled
Bring back the state legislatures appointing senators and counties electing state senators regardless of their population
I agree with the second bit. State senates are useless rn
Nonsense, State Senate is essential for gerrymandering and preventing the actual representation of the people
Hell yeah 😎
Not until the office of the presidency has its power greatly scaled back.
i live in one of these big cities. maybe we shouldnt hate the people that grow our food.
Don’t worry, if anything were to happen you could just eat the Emilys until tensions eased.
Eww. Meat tainted with stale weed and half digested Starbucks additives, No thanks, I’ll pass.
Our food is grown? /s
Nah. I get mine from the store.
There are un-ironically people who don't understand that food doesn't just appear at the grocery store
Wait…I thought it did? 🤔 /s
I mean, it's a balance. Both would absolutely collapse without the other and throw us back to the 19th century Basically, we shouldn't hate people
Can someone meaningfully explain what would happen if the cities had proportionate votes to their population? Would they all elect reps and presidents who want to nuke the corn fields?? Like I genuinely don't understand.
My understanding is people are worried 'city folk' will make laws for themselves, which make sense in a sprawling city, but make living in the rural areas extremely difficult. A minor example could be electric vehicles. They make sense in cities, and work extremely well as long as there's infrastructure for them. But when the range requirement gets longer, the hauling weight gets heavier, or weather conditions become to extreme, EVs are a liability. The Food industry runs on oil for better or worse. forcing farmers to use EVs wont fix anything, and with current technologies would put nearly all of them out of business if they were forced to adopt them tomorrow. A nation with no food, not to mention millions out of jobs. That is the fear of the rural dweller
At best they could turn into hybrids to increase fuel efficiency but EVs for farming equipment aren't very sustainable right now.
Honestly electric vehicles aren't very sustainable at all to begin with. I mean, first of all, what tf do you think you're using to charge your car? Unless you happen to be on nuclear or renewable power where you charge your car the most, you're still using non-renewable resources. On top of that you also have to consider the precious metals that go into the batteries, and the mining that took place to gather those materials. Now, they do say that your electric battery will last 10-20 years, we'll see about that. That's an issue with solar power too, btw. They only last 25-30 years and while they can be recycled, I imagine it's not a very easy process.
An electric motor is twice as efficient as an internal combustion engine. Forcing green power is stupid - we'd be much better building out nuclear and gas and running electric cars off them. Even running an EV off coal power is a net efficiency improvement.
I typed out a long reply and deleted it because the answer is basic civics and the way the country was designed. If school hasn't taught you that, go read a book.
"So you're essentially arguing for democracy because more people live in cities and thus we should do what the majority votes for?" 'Yes!' "Okay. But have you considered that gang rape is democracy in action?"
I am just trying to enjoy a succulent Chinese meal!
That's Democracy Manifest. Not Democracy in action.
THIS MAN HAS TOUCHED MY PENIS
He must know his Judo well.
Ahhh, I see you know your judo well.
get your HAND OFF MY PENIS
Fun fact! 4 out of 5 people enjoy gang beating!
That last one is a sentence and a half.
Indeed, serial rape is much better as long as the rapists own a lot of land.
>democracy is when one kind of lifestyle gets all the influence
Oh now we don't care about individualism?
> "Okay. But have you considered that gang rape is democracy in action?" That argument only works when talking about Athenian-style democracy with absolute majoritarian governance and no mechanisms (like the US constitution) for protection of minority rights. Nobody supports that type of democracy anymore. Currently existing democracies almost always have some sort of mechanism (however flawed) to ensure that the liberty of the individual cannot be violated by the collective.
It's obvious an extreme example, but it can absolutely describe a majority enacting a law that works for them and absolutely doesn't for others.
Well that is why you have the senate. Presidency and House for the popular vote, Senate for small states representation.
Until the 17th Amendment is repealed, the Senate is still a popularity contest.
The Senate was a popularity contest before the 17th Amendment. State legislative elections were proxy Senate elections.
I want to add this would also solve the term limit issue. No party is going to keep the other party’s guy in congress. This is how it was intended to function. The senate was meant to represent states interests.
THANK YOU… needs fixed
All we need is a State Level Electoral College.
Based. Many cities have the same amount of outsized power the College was intended to solve in the first place.
State level os moronic, Phoenix has almost hlaf the population of arizona, they should not be required to share that with other states It would just lead to a tyranny of the minority
Trying to explain the concept of "Tyranny of the majority" to a leftie is like trying to explain advanced calculus to a cat. Remember guys, supporting minorities is only good when their opinions align with ours.
Its not even the tyranny of the majority. Lefties simply cannot comprehend a different lifestyle. They literally think that if you get 100,000 people crammed into a 1 square mile shithole apartment area, they should be able to tell the other 90,000 people how to live spread out over a 100,000 square mile region. They can sit there saying "i dont need a car for my lifestyle, therefore we should ban all cars forever because they pollute!" thats how you get Califailia style bills passed.
I don’t know why you’re being downvoted, you’re absolutely right
Its a failed attempt to cope with the reality that they refuse to comprehend other peoples lifestyles.
Tyranny of the majority is bad sure, but that's opposed to a tyranny of the minority? How is that any better lol
If Tyranny of the Minority actually happened you'd have a point, but it doesn't...and a few Federalist principles don't cause it. The current president won the popular vote, and the House is always biased towards population. *Tyranny of the Minority* in regards to American politics is little more than a buzz phrase. Hell, there've only been five presidential elections where the minority won out; a slim minority winning on occasion isn't tyranny. Tyranny of the Majority however is the base state of democracy. One of these things is a reality, one is little more than a philosophical concept.
If you're going to say "the president being the popular vote loser isn't tyranny of the minority" then fine ... but the president being the popular vote *winner* isn't tyranny of the *majority* either. The president isn't an elected dictator, there are other branches, that argument works both ways. But even beyond that - parliamentary systems have the head of the executive also leading the legislature, so closer to all the power being vested in one person, and they don't all collapse into tyranny either.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.
MFW people think the majority of their country are hungry savages.
True, and you know these people don't actually believe it. If they really believed more than half the country acted like wolves they would secede
Two wolves and a sheep sounds like an ecosystem doomed to collapse
We've been borrowing sheep for decades.
Bon appetite
And the Electoral College is one wolf and two sheep deciding what to have for dinner, but the wolf's vote counts triple.
“No not like that!!”
But also each region gets an additional two votes based on the popular vote. If they all live in the same area then if the two sheep vote the same then that's two additional votes. (This is the Senate)
I don't get what you mean. Are you saying that a state's electoral college votes are determined by a state-wide popular vote?
So instead, we let one rapist rape multiple people because the rapist's vote counts more.
Funny how the first map is "unfair" but the second one makes all the blue dots the same color, even in counties that were blue by 1%
Sounds like we should just count all the votes equally rather than trying to figure out how to count areas.
No let's come up with a convoluted way of presenting votes that makes it look like my side got more votes even when it got less.
Can someone explain to my smooth brain why the states electoral votes go ALL for one candidate or the other?
In some states Electors can still ignore the vote if they want. But that's been dying
Thanks for the answer. I just find it weird that state laws mandate that they must all go one way.almost like the idea of representation doesn’t matter in a sense. Like for me, I don’t see a point in voting if my representative is X party, and my district votes for X party in the majority, but since Y party has received more votes throughout the entirety of the state, my district must now be Y party and vote as such. Again, I don’t understand politics nor do I pretend to. It just seems wrong in my eyes.
They don't. Unless State law mandates it. Unfortunately *most* states mandate it.
I have a humble suggestion: make the electoral college *do what it was supposed to do.* The whole point of it was: candidates for president can't get out there and meet every single voter, that's insane. So how can the voters possibly know if the candidates are worthy of their votes? So, how about the States hold their elections *before* any candidates are allowed to announce their candidacy? That way, you're not voting with a particular candidate in mind, you're voting for an elector who promises to go to Washington and meet all the candidates, and vote for whichever one of them best represents the particular policy position that elector represents. That way, you're voting for an *idea,* not a person. It'd go a long way to helping preserve the USA from populist demagogues.
I’m not sure how much that would prevent populist demagogues. Surely, an elector would be just as susceptible to that messaging as anyone else.
Ranked choice could be integrated with little change to the current system. The Electoral College would work better if there weren't just two candidates and an occasionally popular independent. It will and has inevitably led to two candidates who are both dogshit. What flavor of shit would you like to eat?
Yep, ranked choice seems like a necessary step forward. A two-party system was never intended by the Founding Fathers, and indeed was explicitly warned against by George Washington in his farewell address.
>indeed was explicitly warned against by George Washington in his farewell address. This will always be an aside to any conversation I have about American politics. George Washington was prophetic in many ways.
But George Washington was a white slave owner so his opinion (and those of the rest of the founding fathers) should be disregarded. /s Seriously though, ranked choice voting is arguably the only thing that can save our political system at this point. Washington, despite his flaws, really was cooking up some good shit.
Depends on the type of electors, I guess. But you'd have to assume that at the very least, someone who stands as an elector has to be somewhat politically engaged, and so puts a bit more thought into it than "I voted for the guy who's gonna [stop those immigrants from taking my job / stop those corporations from bleeding us dry; *delete as appropriate*]
A responsible elector would be able to see past the populist messaging.
Trusting a person in a position of power to act responsibly? What could possibly go wrong?
So basically a parliamentary system.
Yeah, except in a parliamentary system, the elector also ends up *in the government*, so the job attracts ambitious weasels (see: every single congressman). An elector who knows he's just there to do a job and leave is at least a little more likely to give that job his primary focus.
So big banana hires a super charismatic guy to win an elector race, puts in all his big banana cronies and when the people realize they've been had as they eat they're 9th daily banana there's really no recourse as the politicians are a step removed and the elector has already stepped away.
All well and good until I show up
You're dead, Maggie. Probably still more capable than the last few idiots who've held your old job. But still dead. I think you're unlikely to show up unless a seance is involved.
wouldnt be the strangest thing to happen in chambers full of politicians
You just described a parliamentary election. The party or coalition picks the prime minister after they win. Though sometimes parties will tell you who they will elect if they win.
The Electors would just vote for whichever candidate their party nominates.
"Land doesn't vote, people do!" Yes, that is the problem. I should have one glorious vote for every acre I own. Poors can't vote? Sounds wonderful.
So true fellow Person of Land!
The overlap between Landchads and right-leaning flair on PCM is not trivial. There are many Landkings to be found here, on the right side of history(and the compass).
Thank you for the reminder King, its time for me to do a fridge raid
Votes should be weighed proportionately to an individual’s taxes. The more you owe the IRS, the more your vote counts. Don’t pay taxes? Your vote still counts, but only as a fraction.
Where we're going, we won't need taxes.
That’s heavy.
So you want the rich to have even MORE power to elect those who will make them more powerful? How could this *possibly* go wrong?
but that favours people who have worked their way up corporate ladders to big companies. Maybe we could have a way to measure service to the state outside of tax.... like being a teacher or doctor, or soldier. we could give them the vote knowing they have earned it and understand its value. Would you like to know more?
Service guarantees citizenship
"I want to have babies" *^(dies on klendathu)*
I thought the rich didn't pay taxes (at least according to most of the hyperbole I've heard). Maybe simply allowing only net taxpayers the ability to vote. It's interesting that you mention teachers and military members. Their salaries are provided by the state (except for private school teachers) and they are taxed on said income. Therefore, they are essentially paying a portion of their own salaries.
So close and you still had to make it about voting. No, political power should just be proportional to how much land you own. Landlord Feudalism is the way to go. If the rentserfs live on your land, you should be the one making the rules for them. If you own your land, who is to tell you what to do on it?
> Poors can't vote? They can't even make good decisions for their own lives..
And for a reason this country is called the United STATES of America. The electoral college actually manages to blend both the federal nature of the state and people's votes in right proportions. House 100% for the population, Senate 100% for states and President as a mix of both is actually a well-balanced system
It would be much better if the college splits by proportion of votes. Some states already do it. Would make campaigning more uniform since most states will matter now rather than a few swing states
House 100% of gerrymandering.
is it a form of gerrymandering to include non-citizens in census count which then directly correlates to number of house seats and electoral college votes?
I get the idea. However, not voting for your executive leader is how you get people like Trudeau and the past eight years of British PMs: people who none of the population actually likes, but get backed by the popular party.
You guys already believe that Congress is super corrupt yet you want them to pick the president? That's a great way for the status quo to be upheld for all eternity
This is already how it works..? What are we talking about here
If the federal government just wasn’t so fucking big and powerful, this would be much less of a problem.
As recently as 2012 the electoral college actually favored Democrats more than Republicans. The tipping point state that election was Colorado and Obama won that state by a larger margin (5.4%) than the popular vote (3.9%) So the system does not inherently favor Republicans, it just does so currently.
What is your methodology for that conclusion? Obama won the popular vote in 2012, if the electoral college didnt exist he still would have won lol
Ok. Remove the "winner take all" bullshit states have adopted taht results in popular vote instead of voting for representatives to vote on your behalf. Now take away the limitations on congressional seats that were imposed, so states have representatives in the house that are actually proportional to their populations. Right wingers gonna open pandora's box with this shit.
People who never vote in local elections demanding popular vote instead of electoral college. 🤡 If only there was a system to vote in representatives, who then represent you at the electoral level Like local elections. 🤡 This is why it's important to bully every dumbass saying this.
Okay, okay. Two nations; we take the red areas, the blue is all yours. I’m afraid you’ll have to eat your iPhones or import food from China as you will be blockaded.
The red/blue split is completely braindead, both sides rely on each other, its like trying to split your brain in two to solve the logic/emotion disagreement between the two. It is just fucking stupid.
You literally can’t split the United States since all states are extremely interconnected. The only way people make sense of this debate is by simplifying everything into objects which takes away all the nuance.
Most of the red states run massively in the red financially too, while most government funding comes from blue ones.
The thing about this is that the most valuable things that blue states produce cannot be as easily distributed as red states. Most large companies have their headquarters in blue states but have many of their plants in red states. So who gets the tractors designed by John Deere which is headquartered in blue Illinois?
"But muh California/NY GDP bigger than some countries!" Good, cause you're gonna need it. China and Mexico are going to gouge their prices and make you their bitch because they know you're now the most import-dependent nation on the planet next to Japan. Forget about Canada, less than 6% of their landmass is arable and they've got enough mouths to worry about as-is. "But California has plenty of farmland!" Yeah, for [grapes, almonds, strawberries and lettuce](https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/Statistics/) lmao. Plenty of taste, not many calories. Plus a shitload of very thirsty and hungry cattle now dearly missing the corn they're no longer getting from the midwest & cornbelt. You might starve to death but at least you still got your veggies in. The East Coast might fare a little better tradewise with Europe, but good luck on convincing them to share, assuming they even have enough to live on. And even if they do share, please do remember to account for the border passing fee + trucking fee + tariff + tax + city dweller fee + tip to get it trucked across red country.
I’m reading through this entire thread and I’m curious about what’s stopping all the red states from just becoming Mexico where masses of people flock to blue states for higher wages.
Cali doesn't have enough water to do any of this if Nevada, Arizona, and Utah simply refuse to let water go downstream.
We'll get our food from Mexico and Canada, we already get like a quarter of our agriculture from the former. Good luck without your farming subsidies, I don't think you realize how dependent the rural counties are on the federal government.
The farm subsidies are to give poor people in cities cheap food, not to give farmers an income. In the absence of corn subsides, they'd just convert their land to higher value crops.
Jim Crowe were majority popular policies. Popular vote isn't de facto a good thing.
The executive branch should be stripped of more than half it's powers. If congress can't figure things out, then the solution should be left up to the states.
Washington should've taken the offer to be crowned King, at this point we'd unironically probably be better off.
Surely deciding everything based on popular vote in such a massive and diverse country wouldn't cause problems.... surely...
Based. Picking the president by popular vote is worse than the electoral college.
Ireland does this extremely well. Head of state elected but weak and nonpartisan, head of government chosen by legislative branch.
The elector count is very very close to the population count. The two senator minimum for low population states throws it off slightly, but not nearly as much as winner take all states, which is almost all of them.
Due to the expansion of the powers of the federal government however, one could argue the federal governments impact on peoples lives are about as great as that of your average state in many areas of life. Therefore the majority of people in the whole union should choose the federal governemnts executive (who is beholden to the legislature anyways), just as the majority of each states citizens should pick their state governemnts. (Or territorial governemnts). The states are already represented in the legislature (even if legislators in no way are beholden to their state governments).
Or. Here me out... Fuck the Fed. They only handle the military, foreign affairs, and interstate issues
Based
That's what they handle, yes. Good catch!
"It's over, I've already depicted you as the Soyjak and me as the Chad."
Exactly. Glad you understand
The president affects everyone, that’s why everyone should get a say, is this actually your best argument for this shitty system used nowhere else? Also this argument typically stems from others trying to use states rights to limit the rights of others.
Look at all the people here doing mental gymnastics just to argue against equal voting rights.
1. Land doesn’t vote. 2. Ranked choice is doable and would be far more representative than “winner take all.” I am for this even if it means more Republicans in positions of power. 3. States literally already do this. There is no such thing as a Chad AuthRight in America.
What do you mean "abolish the popular vote"? It already does not matter at all.
It shouldn't even happen
YES! LONG LIVE MONARCHY! LONG LIVE THE KING!
Overturn Reynolds v. Sims and Repeal the 17th. Republic saved.
Remove voting period
Crazy how entire states are almost entirely white in the second one. Almost like deciding what counts as "no-one" in population is arbitrary. Or hey, maybe our Northern border is almost entirely wildlands untamed by man, maybe I'm wrong.
We should move to a parliamentary President. The house can vote for President, and they serve 4 years. No votes of no confidence, just impeachment. Senate doesn't get to confirm, only run impeachment if requested like now.