“We should elect the president the way we elect governors, senators, mayors, represen

Dutch Uncle said:
Feel free to give examples of where segregation ever worked and remained self-sustaining. I'm curious because I've never read of such a scenario.

Everything I've read is that unity = peace.
Click to expand...

You're essentially repeating what I said. I'm proposing something completely new.
No partition has ever taken place with the cooperation of all sides, so you won't find "history."
The point is to make history.

If unity is what brings peace, then we're really fucked because while we're making each other's laws and tax codes, we genuinely hate each other.
That's what's unsustainable.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
You're essentially repeating what I said. I'm proposing something completely new.
No partition has ever taken place with the cooperation of all sides, so you won't find "history."
The point is to make history.

If unity is what brings peace, then we're really fucked because while we're making each other's laws and tax codes, we genuinely hate each other.
That's what's unsustainable.
Click to expand...
Again, Neef, read more history. You are not proposing something new. Look at Israel and the Palestinian partition, dumbass.

Human nature hasn't changed in over 30,000 years. Tech changes, human nature has not.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Again, Neef, read more history. You are not proposing something new. Look at Israel and the Palestinian partition, dumbass.

Human nature hasn't changed in over 30,000 years. Tech changes, human nature has not.
Click to expand...

You don't believe in evolution.

Grey wolves physically evolve into dogs with only thirty generations of getting food and veterinary care from humans.
The front of the skull expands to make room for a larger cerebrum and thus classification as a dog.

I don't pretend that humans are remotely as good as dogs, but they do evolve.
The US was a brand new idea. That idea fell flat on its ass, obviously, but it was new.
History always has included new ideas.
 
States are just land.

Why should the voters of less populated states have MORE of a say in outcomes?

Why should the votes of millions not count because they happen to be in a state where the majority voted differently from them?
 
BidenPresident said:
“We should elect the president the way we elect governors, senators, mayors, representatives, everybody else – whoever gets the most votes wins,” Raskin said. “We spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year exporting American democracy to other countries, and the one thing they never come back to us with is the idea that, ‘Oh, that electoral college that you have, that’s so great, we think we will adopt that too’.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...skin-electoral-college-danger-american-people
Click to expand...

The Popular vote never really mattered much to anyone until presidents started winning with less than the popular vote.

Since 2 of the last 4 presidents have won now, with less than the popular vote, it's time for a closer look!

This is why Trump's approval rating never exceeded 44% and only declined month after month from there.

Obama, Bush, and Clinton had respective median ratings of 48 percent, 56.5 percent, and 50 percent.

So if you elect an unpopular presidential candidate, he is going to just be exactly that- AND UNPOPULAR PRESIDENT!

This is also why Trump was a one-term president, leaving office with only a 34% approval rating!

That is contrasted by Obama's huge 58% approval rating when he left office. The fact is, Obama won the popular vote twice and was a very popular president like Clinton!
 
Last edited:
SmarterthanYou said:
No, it does not.

protecting individual rights can never be 'democratic'. why on earth would you consider it 'fair' to run roughshod over the rights of other individuals? Is protection of individual rights tyranny, in your opinion?

they don't.

we have one PERSON, one vote, complete equality. you do not know what you're talking about.

we are a Constitutional Republic. end of story. democracies rule by tyranny of the majority and can negate individual rights, something the founders designed a republic not to be able to do.
Click to expand...

Wow, that is some crazy there. The US is listed as a Democracy in every damn listing of world democracies. It is called a "flawed democracy" in many lists.
You are trying to define it away so you can justify the tyranny of the minority. Trump lost by 3 million votes. Bush lost to Gore. But due to some 1780 shenanigans, we installed the electoral college to preserve slavery in many states. Some states would not have joined the union without it. Now you think the electoral college is a fair way to decide who wins, but not who gets the most votes.
Trump ran roughshod over everyone who had the temerity to disagree with him. He lost the vote and tried to set up a dictatorship in the end. That is OK in your view.
How do we decide who wins the Senate seats? How about House seats? How about the governor? How about every damn political office in the country except one. Does that one vote mean we are not a democracy? How can that make sense? Your school board is won by the person who gets the most votes. Dog catcher is the person with the most votes. We are a democracy.
 
Last edited:
SmarterthanYou said:
No, it does not.

protecting individual rights can never be 'democratic'. why on earth would you consider it 'fair' to run roughshod over the rights of other individuals? Is protection of individual rights tyranny, in your opinion?

they don't.

we have one PERSON, one vote, complete equality. you do not know what you're talking about.

we are a Constitutional Republic. end of story. democracies rule by tyranny of the majority and can negate individual rights, something the founders designed a republic not to be able to do.
Click to expand...

Dear fucking idiot


Every dictionary and encyclopedia in the world says your an idiot loser


Fuck you very much
 
Nordberg said:
Wow, that is some crazy there. The US is listed as a Democracy in every damn listing of world democracies. It is called a "flawed democracy" in many lists.
You are trying to define it away so you can justify the tyranny of the minority. Trump lost by 3 million votes. Bush lost to Gore. But due to some 1780 shenanigans, we installed the electoral college to preserve slavery in many states. Some states would not have joined the union without it. Now you think the electoral college is a fair way to decide who wins, but not who gets the most votes.
Trump ran ruughhod over everyone who had the temerity to disagree with him. He lost the vote and tried to set up a dictatorship in the end. That is OK in your view.
Click to expand...

It’s a Russian concocted lie that the Republican Party has been spewing for decades now


They hate Democracy


The Republican Party GAVE UP ON DEMOCRACY decades ago when Nixon began cheating in elections to win because the Republican Party could not win unfair elections anymore
 
BartenderElite said:
They absolutely do. And less populous states also have disproportionate representation in the Senate.

Votes get counted - but they don't count if a voter is in the minority in a given state.
Click to expand...

That's the flaw with the Electoral College. California and NY typically vote Democratic so all of their Electoral votes go to the Dem Candidate.
Thus, all the Republicans in those two states are disenfranchised. Their vote is irrelevant. That's millions of votes that have zero representation.
I'd like to know why that is fair because I and many others think it's very unfair.
 
Joe Capitalist said:
That's the flaw with the Electoral College. California and NY typically vote Democratic so all of their Electoral votes go to the Dem Candidate.
Thus, all the Republicans in those two states are disenfranchised. Their vote is irrelevant. That's millions of votes that have zero representation.
I'd like to know why that is fair because I and many others think it's very unfair.
Click to expand...

Disenfranchised? No, they are in a small minority. Why should their views have as much power as the vast majority does? If you think the smaller party should have equal power, explain why. Then explain why Greens and Libertarians should not have that power too.
 
Joe Capitalist said:
That's the flaw with the Electoral College. California and NY typically vote Democratic so all of their Electoral votes go to the Dem Candidate.
Thus, all the Republicans in those two states are disenfranchised. Their vote is irrelevant. That's millions of votes that have zero representation.
I'd like to know why that is fair because I and many others think it's very unfair.
Click to expand...
The republicans in those states votes count. They just got out voted. Elections have consequences. If they don't like it they should move. Lots of Californians and New Yorkers do just that. Texas and Florida welcome them.
 
BartenderElite said:
They absolutely do. And less populous states also have disproportionate representation in the Senate.

Votes get counted - but they don't count if a voter is in the minority in a given state.
Click to expand...

That is true of all elections. If a candidate for governor wins by 51% to 49% those votes for the minority don't count according to your reasoning. It is winner-take-all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top