Trump is anti-democratic like the CCP is democratic. Stop with the political propaganda masquerading as journalism. Look up the definition of democratic and then pack the courts, eliminate the filibuster, eliminate the electoral college, destroy individual freedom of speech, eliminate individual, family, local and state power to chose …
Trump is anti-democratic like the CCP is democratic. Stop with the political propaganda masquerading as journalism. Look up the definition of democratic and then pack the courts, eliminate the filibuster, eliminate the electoral college, destroy individual freedom of speech, eliminate individual, family, local and state power to chose over centralized federal power. Those are all Democrat attacks on Democracy.
We are a constitutional democratic republic, not a pure democracy. The reason is that pure democracies fail. Eliminating the electoral college would make the US political system fail and thus it would be much less democratic in outcomes.
I would love evidence for this claim that "Eliminating the electoral college would make the US political system fail".
Then you need to explain "fail" how and in what way?
Californians would make more EPA requirements? New Yorker's would apportion more funds to their subways instead of the US building more highways in Alabama?
I don't see how this would be the less democratic. If anything, you're catastrophizing.
Philosophically,
Why should my vote count more than yours? If it counts 63x more than yours because of lines, then don't I win this argument based solely on the fact that politics is a power game?
Your point would have to be 63x better than mine. Plus, it's on you to describe how this current regime makes for a more democratic outcome (here comes something about rural voters not being bullied, but why accept the opposite?). I simply have to point out that it's unfair and that going to 1:1 enfranchises everyone regardless of lines on a map.
Tyranny of the majority. Most voters are uniformed and prone to voting themselves short-term benefits at the cost of long-term system health. If direct democracy worked we would see it everywhere and we would see evidence that it works. We don't. It does not.
It still wouldn't be a direct democracy if my vote counted the same as yours. You're the person who brought up, "We are a constitutional democratic republic, not a pure democracy." So even if our votes counted the same, we would not have a direct democracy because no matter what we would be electing representatives. (This should not have to be said.)
Also, if you're afraid of votes being 1:1 ask yourself, "What does the constitution even do?"
I will note, making votes 1:1 does not take away the constitution or the amendments. It won't change the Senate, the courts, or the House.
The people of one state have never been more politically different than other states except maybe when the south was committed to slavery. Your vote for decisions that impact people in another state should not count the same. It should be representative each state's majority. There everyone's vote counts within their state on a 1:1 basis.
The system is this way for balance. It isn't perfect... it is just the best ever designed.
We already have lopsided majority democracy in the lower house. And look at the power wielded by that majority. The House speaker being elected by an uber liberal California district wields that power against almost every other citizen who is less liberal. After the 2022 election this is likely to flip... with a red-state rep taking the House lead and then poking bluechecks as a rule. Is this 1:1?
Sorry, I was referring to "Democracy means a form of government that is "For the people, by the people, of the people". That is people governing the nation are representatives elected among the people of the nation, they are duty bound against the citizens of the nation, and are elected by the citizens only." In our system the vote of the citizens does not determine the winner, only the vote of the electoral college. And our judges are confirmed by a legislative body which is not representative of the voters.
Only for the President. You leave out the national legislature and all the state and local government elections. Electing DAs has proven disastrous as would electing judges.
I'm sorry, but to be frank, this is a nonsensical argument that exploits people's ignorance. Trumpists love regurgitating it out of convenience.
It is true that the advantage of a republic over a pure democracy is that it provides a buffer against the passions of mob rule. That's why the Electoral College was designed to work in a manner reflecting this reality. It was intentionally eletist - Electors were meant to be learned men with the judgement to select a suitable occupant of the office. The Framers intentionally made this the job of a singular body constructed for this sole purpose, instead of the Senate, to best insulate against raw politics.
Unfortunately this turned out to be another casualty of the naive hope that America would not become captive to political parties, which it did. As a result, states began simply sending Electors who would vote according to the preferences of the party that controlled the state.
Relative to this, the fact that states eventually began holding popular elections to determine the Electors was something of a step up in legitimacy. But if one has a problem with the idea of a popular vote, what we have now is certainly no better: a popular vote with a massive round-off error, where most states' Electors are still a foregone conclusion given the dominance of one or the other political parties, and only about a dozen states actually have a chance of supporting a different party than in the previous election.
What's more, given that the point of the Electoral College was to keep populist demagogues out of the country's highest office, it has been a spectacular failure in that it was responsible for getting one elected when a popular vote would have sent him packing. Read the Federalist Papers some time - Trump is precisely the kind of candidate the Founders were afraid of - ignorant, of low character, and helped into power by a foreign adversary.
And no, the point of the Electoral College was *not* to give more weight to smaller states. That may have been a deal-sweetener for those states, but it was not meant to enable minority rule. And it was certainly not meant to favor rural areas over urban ones - the very opposite of the explicitly eletist sentiments underlying the theoretical advantage of republics. Whatever our biases and prejudices may be, our framers certainly maintained no corn pone sentiments about the inherent virtue or wisdom of the "salt of the earth".
The Electoral College as it is now is nothing but a Frankenstein's monster of republican and democratic ideals and serves only to enable minority rule of the very kind that it was intended to prevent. If electing a President is to be subject to the fickle passions of the general public, then the system for doing so should, at the very least, abide by the wishes of the majority of its citizens. Otherwise it serves no valid democratic purpose - republican or otherwise.
At least we agree about the relevance of the Electoral College now. And we may now risk that states may take over the electoral college vote and not recognize the state's popular vote!
Personally I don’t think more democracy equals a better political system. We aren’t a simple democracy and that is a good thing. The parts of our system that should be more democratic, such as communication and press freedom, are restricted by both parties, but moreso by the Democratic Party.
The Democratic Party is obsessed with the number of people voting--it wants more people voting regardless of whether those voters are competent or even citizens. This is not good for a country, if it doesn’t want incompetent or corrupt bureaucrats running it.
I think there should be a basic literary, numeracy and civics test to vote. The power to vote is potentially more dangerous than the power to drive but the latter we require lots of hoops but the former the Democratic Party wants to give to 18 year olds who haven’t even read the first line of the constitution or couldn’t interpret a pie chart. Why? Because they can get those votes just by promising them, falsely, more of the pie.
It's completely fair to ponder, "I don't think more democracy equals a better political system".
If your argument is something to the effect of, "18 year olds are not mentally capable of weighing their political decisions" then I believe you need to prove that. As it currently stands, 18 years are given adulthood and a massive legal change. I find it unethical to separate adulthood from voting (or drinking). The drinking age limit of 21 is currently ridiculous and if we were a more ethical society we would make it 18; for liberty.
On the tests, I would say, "Who gets to decide?" That seems ripe for discrimination and one could see a slippery slope towards fewer and fewer eligible voters over time. Slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies, so take it with a grain of salt. Maybe we could do it and make criteria such as, "The test must include 90% of the US population."
Side question for anyone reading: Has there ever been an election decided by the 10% least intelligent people in society? That would be fascinating. Of course, the joke here is the 2016 election. :) A good cheap shot.
Some 18 year olds are prepared to deliberate on politics and make a rational vote. I’d say most are not. When I was 18 I was probably prepared -- if I had actually spent a meaningful amount of effort in researching the stufff under debate. But I didn’t. And I didn’t vote when I was 18. And I think that was a good decision on my part given how I didn’t do my homework. Simply having a basic test that is voluntary -- would winnow out the 18 year olds ill prepared. Most wouldn’t have the motivation to even take the test. But I’d also consider upping the age to 21 except for 18 - 20 year olds who joined the military *and* passed the basic civics exam. If someone is going to fight at the bidding of our government, they should be allowed to vote, whatever their age -- even if I’d advise against joining the military as things are.
And people should have to take the civics exam every 5 years -- because sometimes people simply mentally decline, and they should no longer be permitted to vote if they are not mentally fit. If I cannot interpret a pie chart, I should not be voting.
I think a drinking age of 18 is fine.
As for who decides the tests? We decide. People already decided on the constitution and the laws we currently live under. The tests are no more ripe for discrimination than general laws are. Yet we vote for them.
I live in Orange County California, and recently we had a vote for primaries, and one of the guys running for a position was Steve Rocco. A convicted ketchup bottle thief that had won a position on the Orange Unified School district board of trustees year ago strictly out of voter incompetence . He constantly runs. Constantly trolls. And gets sometimes thousands of votes. I take his case to be sufficient justification for a test. 
Our country is filled with willfully ignorant, but politically active, people regarding politics, and both parties use those willfully ignorant people to pad their votes. Some people think it’s their duty to just vote. It isn’t. It’s their duty to educate themselves if they wish to vote. And we should have a basic test to demonstrate a very low level of proof that such sufficient education has been achieved. No gotcha questions. Everything expected to be known and all skills expected to have been mastered clearly available. Retake it as many times as a person wants.
I am somewhat into it. Didn’t really think the last part helped your argument. The idea of somewhat fair civics tests in order to vote might get some buy in. I don’t think making people pick the military in order to vote sooner is ethical— Feels coercive.
I think the optimistic view of testing in order to vote is interesting.
Democrats will start pushing to lower the voting age to 16. We should do the opposite. Kids are maturing much later. They used to leave the nest at 18 and start families and take care of their own life. Now they are coddled by moms until they are in their mid 20s.
If you don't think someone who participates in a plot to overthrow our Constitutional order and nullify the results of a Presidential election to maintain power is anti-democratic, you're beyond delusional. Seeking to repair broken structures within our democracy that maintain minoritarian rule only seems "anti-democratic" to those who benefit from such rule.
Oh, and would you like to know why Americans developed such a dependency on federal power? Because for years following the collapse of Reconstruction and all throughout Jim Crow, "state power" enabled white supremacists to oppress, disenfranchise, and brutalize American blacks. It was the federal government that liberated them from enslavement, who granted them rights, and in the end the only ones who would stand up for those rights when the states (especially, but not exclusively, in the American South) brazenly sought to undermine them.
Of course, Republican hypocrites are more than happy to flex federal power when preventing states and localities from enacting sensible gun legislation, or proposing federal bans on abortion, or demanding that states cooperate with federal immigration officials over the objections of local police departments, or wanting Congress to force states to overrule their Presidential election results, etc.
Wait, that last one bears repeating, in something I rarely indulge - all caps:
WANTING CONGRESS TO FORCE STATES TO OVERRULE THEIR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION RESULTS
Again, if you honestly don't see this as the biggest threat to democracy any of us have seen in our lifetimes (especially when paired with follow up efforts to intimidate state election officials and install 2020 election deniers in key positions of power over state elections), you're more than a "social misfit" - you're either a completely unserious person, or a downright sociopath. Just like Trump.
Trump is anti-democratic like the CCP is democratic. Stop with the political propaganda masquerading as journalism. Look up the definition of democratic and then pack the courts, eliminate the filibuster, eliminate the electoral college, destroy individual freedom of speech, eliminate individual, family, local and state power to chose over centralized federal power. Those are all Democrat attacks on Democracy.
Logically, making each voter equal is inherently more democratic.
So that begs the question: what about eliminating the electoral college will make the USA less democratic?
We are a constitutional democratic republic, not a pure democracy. The reason is that pure democracies fail. Eliminating the electoral college would make the US political system fail and thus it would be much less democratic in outcomes.
I would love evidence for this claim that "Eliminating the electoral college would make the US political system fail".
Then you need to explain "fail" how and in what way?
Californians would make more EPA requirements? New Yorker's would apportion more funds to their subways instead of the US building more highways in Alabama?
I don't see how this would be the less democratic. If anything, you're catastrophizing.
Philosophically,
Why should my vote count more than yours? If it counts 63x more than yours because of lines, then don't I win this argument based solely on the fact that politics is a power game?
Your point would have to be 63x better than mine. Plus, it's on you to describe how this current regime makes for a more democratic outcome (here comes something about rural voters not being bullied, but why accept the opposite?). I simply have to point out that it's unfair and that going to 1:1 enfranchises everyone regardless of lines on a map.
Tyranny of the majority. Most voters are uniformed and prone to voting themselves short-term benefits at the cost of long-term system health. If direct democracy worked we would see it everywhere and we would see evidence that it works. We don't. It does not.
https://harvardpolitics.com/the-dangers-of-direct-democracy/
It still wouldn't be a direct democracy if my vote counted the same as yours. You're the person who brought up, "We are a constitutional democratic republic, not a pure democracy." So even if our votes counted the same, we would not have a direct democracy because no matter what we would be electing representatives. (This should not have to be said.)
Also, if you're afraid of votes being 1:1 ask yourself, "What does the constitution even do?"
I will note, making votes 1:1 does not take away the constitution or the amendments. It won't change the Senate, the courts, or the House.
The people of one state have never been more politically different than other states except maybe when the south was committed to slavery. Your vote for decisions that impact people in another state should not count the same. It should be representative each state's majority. There everyone's vote counts within their state on a 1:1 basis.
The system is this way for balance. It isn't perfect... it is just the best ever designed.
We already have lopsided majority democracy in the lower house. And look at the power wielded by that majority. The House speaker being elected by an uber liberal California district wields that power against almost every other citizen who is less liberal. After the 2022 election this is likely to flip... with a red-state rep taking the House lead and then poking bluechecks as a rule. Is this 1:1?
Pure democracies fail? Are Western European countries in the process of failing? I had not noticed.
There are no pure democracies in Europe that I am aware of. The Swiss are direct democracies within Cantons only. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy
Sorry, I was referring to "Democracy means a form of government that is "For the people, by the people, of the people". That is people governing the nation are representatives elected among the people of the nation, they are duty bound against the citizens of the nation, and are elected by the citizens only." In our system the vote of the citizens does not determine the winner, only the vote of the electoral college. And our judges are confirmed by a legislative body which is not representative of the voters.
Only for the President. You leave out the national legislature and all the state and local government elections. Electing DAs has proven disastrous as would electing judges.
I'm sorry, but to be frank, this is a nonsensical argument that exploits people's ignorance. Trumpists love regurgitating it out of convenience.
It is true that the advantage of a republic over a pure democracy is that it provides a buffer against the passions of mob rule. That's why the Electoral College was designed to work in a manner reflecting this reality. It was intentionally eletist - Electors were meant to be learned men with the judgement to select a suitable occupant of the office. The Framers intentionally made this the job of a singular body constructed for this sole purpose, instead of the Senate, to best insulate against raw politics.
Unfortunately this turned out to be another casualty of the naive hope that America would not become captive to political parties, which it did. As a result, states began simply sending Electors who would vote according to the preferences of the party that controlled the state.
Relative to this, the fact that states eventually began holding popular elections to determine the Electors was something of a step up in legitimacy. But if one has a problem with the idea of a popular vote, what we have now is certainly no better: a popular vote with a massive round-off error, where most states' Electors are still a foregone conclusion given the dominance of one or the other political parties, and only about a dozen states actually have a chance of supporting a different party than in the previous election.
What's more, given that the point of the Electoral College was to keep populist demagogues out of the country's highest office, it has been a spectacular failure in that it was responsible for getting one elected when a popular vote would have sent him packing. Read the Federalist Papers some time - Trump is precisely the kind of candidate the Founders were afraid of - ignorant, of low character, and helped into power by a foreign adversary.
And no, the point of the Electoral College was *not* to give more weight to smaller states. That may have been a deal-sweetener for those states, but it was not meant to enable minority rule. And it was certainly not meant to favor rural areas over urban ones - the very opposite of the explicitly eletist sentiments underlying the theoretical advantage of republics. Whatever our biases and prejudices may be, our framers certainly maintained no corn pone sentiments about the inherent virtue or wisdom of the "salt of the earth".
The Electoral College as it is now is nothing but a Frankenstein's monster of republican and democratic ideals and serves only to enable minority rule of the very kind that it was intended to prevent. If electing a President is to be subject to the fickle passions of the general public, then the system for doing so should, at the very least, abide by the wishes of the majority of its citizens. Otherwise it serves no valid democratic purpose - republican or otherwise.
At least we agree about the relevance of the Electoral College now. And we may now risk that states may take over the electoral college vote and not recognize the state's popular vote!
Personally I don’t think more democracy equals a better political system. We aren’t a simple democracy and that is a good thing. The parts of our system that should be more democratic, such as communication and press freedom, are restricted by both parties, but moreso by the Democratic Party.
The Democratic Party is obsessed with the number of people voting--it wants more people voting regardless of whether those voters are competent or even citizens. This is not good for a country, if it doesn’t want incompetent or corrupt bureaucrats running it.
I think there should be a basic literary, numeracy and civics test to vote. The power to vote is potentially more dangerous than the power to drive but the latter we require lots of hoops but the former the Democratic Party wants to give to 18 year olds who haven’t even read the first line of the constitution or couldn’t interpret a pie chart. Why? Because they can get those votes just by promising them, falsely, more of the pie.
It's completely fair to ponder, "I don't think more democracy equals a better political system".
If your argument is something to the effect of, "18 year olds are not mentally capable of weighing their political decisions" then I believe you need to prove that. As it currently stands, 18 years are given adulthood and a massive legal change. I find it unethical to separate adulthood from voting (or drinking). The drinking age limit of 21 is currently ridiculous and if we were a more ethical society we would make it 18; for liberty.
On the tests, I would say, "Who gets to decide?" That seems ripe for discrimination and one could see a slippery slope towards fewer and fewer eligible voters over time. Slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies, so take it with a grain of salt. Maybe we could do it and make criteria such as, "The test must include 90% of the US population."
Side question for anyone reading: Has there ever been an election decided by the 10% least intelligent people in society? That would be fascinating. Of course, the joke here is the 2016 election. :) A good cheap shot.
Some 18 year olds are prepared to deliberate on politics and make a rational vote. I’d say most are not. When I was 18 I was probably prepared -- if I had actually spent a meaningful amount of effort in researching the stufff under debate. But I didn’t. And I didn’t vote when I was 18. And I think that was a good decision on my part given how I didn’t do my homework. Simply having a basic test that is voluntary -- would winnow out the 18 year olds ill prepared. Most wouldn’t have the motivation to even take the test. But I’d also consider upping the age to 21 except for 18 - 20 year olds who joined the military *and* passed the basic civics exam. If someone is going to fight at the bidding of our government, they should be allowed to vote, whatever their age -- even if I’d advise against joining the military as things are.
And people should have to take the civics exam every 5 years -- because sometimes people simply mentally decline, and they should no longer be permitted to vote if they are not mentally fit. If I cannot interpret a pie chart, I should not be voting.
I think a drinking age of 18 is fine.
As for who decides the tests? We decide. People already decided on the constitution and the laws we currently live under. The tests are no more ripe for discrimination than general laws are. Yet we vote for them.
I live in Orange County California, and recently we had a vote for primaries, and one of the guys running for a position was Steve Rocco. A convicted ketchup bottle thief that had won a position on the Orange Unified School district board of trustees year ago strictly out of voter incompetence . He constantly runs. Constantly trolls. And gets sometimes thousands of votes. I take his case to be sufficient justification for a test. 
https://www.ocweekly.com/why-did-more-than-75000-people-vote-to-hand-over-the-county-clerk-recorder-job-to-a-convicted-ketchup-bottle-thief/
Our country is filled with willfully ignorant, but politically active, people regarding politics, and both parties use those willfully ignorant people to pad their votes. Some people think it’s their duty to just vote. It isn’t. It’s their duty to educate themselves if they wish to vote. And we should have a basic test to demonstrate a very low level of proof that such sufficient education has been achieved. No gotcha questions. Everything expected to be known and all skills expected to have been mastered clearly available. Retake it as many times as a person wants.
I am somewhat into it. Didn’t really think the last part helped your argument. The idea of somewhat fair civics tests in order to vote might get some buy in. I don’t think making people pick the military in order to vote sooner is ethical— Feels coercive.
I think the optimistic view of testing in order to vote is interesting.
Democrats will start pushing to lower the voting age to 16. We should do the opposite. Kids are maturing much later. They used to leave the nest at 18 and start families and take care of their own life. Now they are coddled by moms until they are in their mid 20s.
Don't worry, the GOP will make sure 16b years olds have guns too. Or maybe do worry.
If you don't think someone who participates in a plot to overthrow our Constitutional order and nullify the results of a Presidential election to maintain power is anti-democratic, you're beyond delusional. Seeking to repair broken structures within our democracy that maintain minoritarian rule only seems "anti-democratic" to those who benefit from such rule.
Oh, and would you like to know why Americans developed such a dependency on federal power? Because for years following the collapse of Reconstruction and all throughout Jim Crow, "state power" enabled white supremacists to oppress, disenfranchise, and brutalize American blacks. It was the federal government that liberated them from enslavement, who granted them rights, and in the end the only ones who would stand up for those rights when the states (especially, but not exclusively, in the American South) brazenly sought to undermine them.
Of course, Republican hypocrites are more than happy to flex federal power when preventing states and localities from enacting sensible gun legislation, or proposing federal bans on abortion, or demanding that states cooperate with federal immigration officials over the objections of local police departments, or wanting Congress to force states to overrule their Presidential election results, etc.
Wait, that last one bears repeating, in something I rarely indulge - all caps:
WANTING CONGRESS TO FORCE STATES TO OVERRULE THEIR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION RESULTS
Again, if you honestly don't see this as the biggest threat to democracy any of us have seen in our lifetimes (especially when paired with follow up efforts to intimidate state election officials and install 2020 election deniers in key positions of power over state elections), you're more than a "social misfit" - you're either a completely unserious person, or a downright sociopath. Just like Trump.