Dems, don't let Repubs bamboozle you, America IS a democracy.

[westwall]

Fail, that is not a counter argument.

Do we vote in America?

yes.

WE are a democracy, get over it.

Wrong, dumbass. We vote using democratic PRINCIPLES, but anyone who isn't a moron knows that your wet dream with your "one person one vote", bullshit is to have the country run by New York and California.

And that ain't ever going to happen. The Founders were too smart for idiots like you.

 

[westwall]

So what are you saying, 'minority rule' is democracy?

That's insane.

No, dumbass. What we are saying is you aren't allowed to get 51 out of a hundred people to say it's legal to kill one of the 49 to steal their belongings.

 

[Rumpole]

"Minority rule" is a conceit spun up my majoritarians when they can't get their way.

Well, we vote, right?

So, which is it, minority rule? Or Majority rule?

It's one or the other. There are no ties in democracy.

 

[Rumpole]

Wrong, dumbass. We vote using democratic PRINCIPLES, but anyone who isn't a moron knows that your wet dream with your "one person one vote", bullshit is to have the country run by New York and California.

And that ain't ever going to happen. The Founders were too smart for idiots like you.

You're a total moron.

Dirt doesn't vote. People do.

People are people, someone from Bakersfield California is no different than someone from buttfuck Idaho.

Suck on the truth, you doorknob dumbass.

You just can't handle the fact that Trump is a criminal.

 

[Rumpole]

No, dumbass. What we are saying is you aren't allowed to get 51 out of a hundred people to say it's legal to kill one of the 49 to steal their belongings.

What we are saying is you aren't allowed to get 49 out of a hundred people to say it's legal to kill one of the 51 to steal their belongings.

Nice logic, fuckwit.

Weasel words are weasel words, no matter how you arrange them, shit-for-brains.

 

[dblack]

Well, we vote, right?

So, which is it, minority rule? Or Majority rule?

It's one or the other. There are no ties in democracy.

There are limits on democracy. Sorry, but that's by design. It's a good thing. Mob rule blows.

 

[GMCGeneral]

There are limits on democracy. Sorry, but that's by design. It's a good thing. Mob rule blows.

Yep. In Rump-Hole's twisted Amerika, ONLY the urban shitholes will get 100% of the say in the National agenda.

 

[Rumpole]

There are limits on democracy. Sorry, but that's by design. It's a good thing. Mob rule blows.

So a majority is a mob, but a minority isn't?

So, Biden's 81,000,000 votes is a mob?

But Trump's 74,000,000 votes is not?

This is how stupid you guys are.

Hey, all we have in modernity are mobs.

Things have changed since the late 18th century.

ya think? Wake the fuck up.

 

[dblack]

There are no ties in democracy.

That's one of the main reasons democracy sucks.

 

[dblack]

So a majority is a mob, but a minority isn't?

So, Biden's 81,000,000 votes is a mob?

But Trump's 74,000,000 votes is not?

And what will you be whining about when it's reversed? When Trump gets 90m and Biden gets 65. Will you suddenly see all Trump's virtues and swear fealty? Because that's very possibly what the majority is going to hand you in the next election. When THAT majority takes over, maybe you'll have a sharper understanding of the term "mob rule".

That's what I just don't get. Democrats are forever on a mission to give the majority more power, and I'm watching the majority tilt full fascist. Fuck that.

 

[dblack]

Rumpole - why do you see an inherent virtue in majority rule? Do you think the majority is always right? Seriously?

The only tangible benefit of democracy that I can come up with is that people are somewhat less likely to revolt if most of them support the government. That's not insignificant, but neither is it inherently virtuous. It's just a better way to control people.

You want to change the way we elect the President. You want it to be by the popular vote of the nation as a whole rather than the EC (which more or less divides it into a bunch of sub elections where each state decides which candidate it will support). But why do you think one approach is better than the other?

It would be like if you lobbied the NFL to change the way they decide the football championship every year. You might argue that they should skip the playoffs and give the championship to the team that scored the most total points over the course of the season. "Every point is equal" could be your rallying cry.

That would change the game radically. Individual games wouldn't really matter anymore, only points scored. Teams probably wouldn't worry as much about defense, etc ... And maybe that would be an improvement. Who knows? The point is, it would change the game. Teams would no longer care about winning individual games, just scoring points.

Abolishing the EC and reforming the national elections to follow the popular vote would radically change the game of campaigning for President. If a candidate could just focus solely on scoring as many votes as possible, they wouldn't have to worry about persuading the states to unite in support of a common cause. They'd just do whatever scored them the most "points". Populism uber alles.

How is that an improvement?

 

[Rumpole]

Rumpole - why do you see an inherent virtue in majority rule? Do you think the majority is always right? Seriously?

Consult Hamilton's ghost, or his intellectual heir, the federalist society, per:

"... that fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail." ---Alexander Hamilton

It's not about being right or 'virtue' per se, it's simply that if a majority wins elections, and that's serving the principle 'the greatest good for the greatest number' more than if you had a minority winning elections.

The only tangible benefit of democracy that I can come up with is that people are somewhat less likely to revolt if most of them support the government. That's not insignificant, but neither is it inherently virtuous. It's just a better way to control people.

Recall the maxim by Churchill: "Democracy Is the Worst Form of Government Except For All Others Which Have Been Tried"

That's it. Democracy has faults, but the others have more. A benign autocracy would be wonderful if a benevolent generous genius was dictator. But he would die or be murdered and someone evil would always take his place, and this is why autocracies cannot be allowed. The reason someone evil would take his place because nothing attracts evil more than absolute power, evil lusts after it and would employ any and all means to achieve. In an autocracy, it's much easier for a demagogue to acquire power than in a democracy, though democracies of the past have had their share of them, Germany, Italy, etc.

In America, it's particularly difficult because America had the wisdom to have the military swear allegiance to a constitution (instead of a leader, a man, a person). In America, the Constitution is sacrosanct, and that fact is why American democracy will reign for a long time. A guy like Trump can still do a lot of damage, though, and he has done a lot of damage insofar as shaking the confidence in elections to some 64,000,000 people, a destructive feat no person in American history has achieved, thus far. This is why Putin loves the guy. This is why, in my view, he must be incarcerated.

You want to change the way we elect the President. You want it to be by the popular vote of the nation as a whole rather than the EC (which more or less divides it into a bunch of sub elections where each state decides which candidate it will support). But why do you think one approach is better than the other?

Because the only way to garner 'the will of the people' is if majority wins. From the time Washington was election, until the year 2000, that's 212 years, the minority won only two times. That, in my view, proves that it was framer intent that the popular vote and the EC coincide. That it has occured, again, twice, but the frequency has been shorted to two decades tells me that, due to a major shift in demographics the framers could not foresee that this is happening tells me that the EC is ripe for reform, which is why I support the NPVIC.

It would be like if you lobbied the NFL to change the way they decide the football championship every year. You might argue that they should skip the playoffs and give the championship to the team that scored the most total points over the course of the season. "Every point is equal" could be your rallying cry.

No, it wouldn't be like the NFL because the NFL is about a game, America is about something far more important. But let's look at your metaphor more closely:

Your metaphor fails because it compares a system designed for equity and representation (democracy) with one designed for spectacle and competition (NFL playoffs). The aim of having every vote count equally in a democracy is to ensure fairness and equal representation, which has profound implications for justice and governance. Meanwhile, the NFL's playoff system is structured to create suspense and climax, not to ensure that the team with the most points throughout the season is necessarily championed.

The metaphor also overlooks that in democracy, unlike sports, the stakes are the rights and lives of citizens. Thus, while it's acceptable and even desirable for sports leagues to seek the most entertaining outcome, it is crucial for democratic systems to strive for the fairest outcome. Therefore, suggesting a change in democratic voting to mimic sports playoff systems would undermine the very purpose of democratic governance by distorting the principle of equal representation.

Ultimately, while though your argument is inventive, it conflates the objectives of a democratic system with those of a sports league, missing the core values and implications inherent in each.

Capiche?

That would change the game radically. Individual games wouldn't really matter anymore, only points scored. Teams probably wouldn't worry as much about defense, etc ... And maybe that would be an improvement. Who knows? The point is, it would change the game. Teams would no longer care about winning individual games, just scoring points.

Abolishing the EC and reforming the national elections to follow the popular vote would radically change the game of campaigning for President. If a candidate could just focus solely on scoring as many votes as possible, they wouldn't have to worry about persuading the states to unite in support of a common cause. They'd just do whatever scored them the most "points". Populism uber alles.

How is that an improvement?

I think it's important to clarify the implications and goals of such a change in the context of democratic governance.

First, the analog you've used suggests that under a popular vote system, candidates would focus solely on "scoring points" in the form of accumulating as many votes as possible, potentially at the expense of broader, unifying policy proposals. This is wrong. This concern implies that candidates might pander to populous areas or specific groups to gain votes, leading to a form of campaigning/governance that does not necessarily address the needs of the entire country.

However, this perspective overlooks several key aspects of democratic values and representation. Under the current Electoral College system, presidential candidates primarily focus on a small number of battleground states, often neglecting voters in states considered safely in one camp or the other. This can lead to national policies that are skewed toward the interests of these few states rather than the broader American populace. Shifting to a popular vote would actually require candidates to engage with a more diverse electorate across the entire nation, not just a select few areas. This would likely result in campaigns that are more inclusive and attentive to a wider array of issues and concerns affecting Americans in different regions.

Moreover, the comparison to sports, where defense might be neglected in favor of scoring, doesn’t align well with political campaigning. In democratic elections, "defense" could be analogized to addressing or countering the concerns and criticisms from opposition parties and their supporters. This aspect of campaigning would not disappear under a popular vote; rather, it would still be essential for a candidate to address the nation's diverse concerns comprehensively, both defending their own positions and critiquing those of their opponents to appeal to a broader electorate.

Additionally, the fear that candidates would merely aim to "score points" simplistically assumes that voters are easily swayed by shallow appeals. In reality, voters consider a range of factors, including the credibility, policies, and the perceived sincerity of candidates. Shifting to a popular vote acknowledges every vote equally, encouraging broader participation and potentially increasing the accountability of elected officials, as they would need to appeal to a more comprehensive cross-section of the American public.

Finally, a 'one man one vote' approach as a political approach is not inherently detrimental and is a legitimate expression of democracy when it represents a genuine response to the populace's needs and concerns. The real issue arises when democracy is manipulated for narrow gains without substantive policy backing. Therefore, the challenge isn't democracy, per se, but ensuring that democratic mechanisms like elections are structured to produce outcomes that genuinely reflect the electorate's will while promoting responsible governance.

The goal of electoral reform towards a popular vote isn't to undermine the importance of unified national policies but to enhance the representativeness and legitimacy of the electoral process, ensuring that every citizen's vote has equal weight and that elected leaders reflect the true majority of national opinion.

Anyway, give it some thought. Once you 'get it', it just might grow on you.

Thing is, Republicans don't like democracy insofar as the popular vote, because, to be honest, well, in the last 30 something years, Republicans have only won the will of the people once. And, FYI, 'the will of the people' is 'the majority' just like Hamilton said.

The framers feared 'factions', but in late 18th century, they were a problem. Today, with 130,000,000 voters, it's a moot point because all we have are factions, because what we have now are thousands and thousands of factions. Thing is, we are so large now, that the bigness prevents any one faction gaining control. Now, when the framers were thinking of factions, they weren't thinking of political parties, they were thinking of groups unified for some purpose, like a guild, a union, that sort of thing. No one faction is so large that it poses a threat to majority rule. The majority will always be diluted with many factions, due to the sheer size of today's modernity, which is what the framers wanted.

This idea "factions" is an anachronism, so the EC is, therefore, an anachronism. But, alas, Repubs fear it for they fear losing their grip on power. thing is, if you don't have the will of the people, you do not deserve power. The system should reward under the concept of the 'greatest good for the greatest number. I mean, what else can it be? This idea that Biden's 81,000,000 votes is a' mob' but Trumps 74,000,000 votes is not, is absurd on it's face. What was true in 1787 just isn't true today.

What I don't understand is that, given Republicans claiming they are the party of free markets, what about the free market of ideas? Why not 'may the best ideas win'? What about that? If you are for free markets, would not a system that rewards the best ideas force those who are not successful to rethink their ideas in their hopes of winning the hearts and minds of the people? the ONLY way to get there is with 'one man one vote'. There is no other way. As for as democracy's faults, we still have a bicameral legislature to tame the excesses of democracy's wild side, both houses have to compromise to get anything done, and this rewards the center, and that is a good thing. So, the EC does NOT get rid of the house of representatives and the senate, (which favors republicans given the 2 senators per state in the constitution). You guys still have the advantage.

 

[HikerGuy83]

James madison traveled to Philadelphia in 1787 with Athens on his mind. He had spent the year before the Constitutional Convention reading two trunkfuls of books on the history of failed democracies, sent to him from Paris by Thomas Jefferson......

America Is Living James Madison’s Nightmare

The Founders designed a government that would resist mob rule. They didn’t anticipate how strong the mob could become.

www.theatlantic.com

Hmmmmmm.......

 

[HikerGuy83]

Finally, a 'one man one vote' approach as a political approach is not inherently detrimental and is a legitimate expression of democracy when it represents a genuine response to the populace's needs and concerns.

The utter failure of this tripe is that it isn't just the populace that it was concerned about.

The juristiction of states was seen as great (in terms of scope) that the federal government.

Read Federalist 45 if you don't believe me.

Popular rule was not going to let Virginia override Rhode Island. Hence the senate, and the electoral college.

It's almost there now as California disenfranchises more voters than about 15 states combined. Sooner or later we sell it or break it up.