So then smaller states with smaller populations just get no say so correct??? Cause that's the purpose of the electoral!!! All states (which actually means people in politics) are different sizes. Therefore smaller states less population versus bigger states with bigger population. If we went by popular vote because electoral college is gone then these smaller states would not be able to compete with bigger states. For example, lets say California has a population of 1.5 billion half those people (750,000,000) feel democratic while other half (750,000,000) feel republican. But Montana… Read more
@1andonlymikusGreen1yr1Y
It isn't that smaller states don't get a say, it's that the PEOPLE'S say is what matters, not the states'. The whole "bigger states/bigger cities will decide elections" is not true whatsoever. It doesn't even make sense when you read into it. The people in those cities and states are what matters. Changing to a popular vote system (including stuff like ranked voting, what Australia does) will lead to people actually feeling as if their vote matters. If politicians have issues with it, they just need to adopt more popular policies that align with the views of their voter base, ya know, the people who put you in charge and the ones that you're governing. Land shouldn't vote, people should.
@TruthHurts10111mos11MO
YOU DON'T CARE SQUAT ABOUT THE PEOPLE! All YOU CARE ABOUT IS MAINTAINING YOUR LEFTIST HOLD ON POWER TO USURP OUR LIBERTIES AND DESTROY OUR RIGHTS!
@itguru_ianConstitution11mos11MO
I understand your concern about protecting individual liberties and rights. A specific example that comes to mind is concerns about the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. Some people worry that a shift in power could lead to stricter gun control laws, impacting their rights. How do you think a popular vote system would affect the balance of power and the protection of our rights?
@TruthHurts10111mos11MO
It would make the cities infect the entire electoral system and destroy representation for farmers and small-town folks.
@9F24W728mos8MO
I do not want my right to be usurped as you were saying
@9F24W728mos8MO
I agree that my vote will actually be counted!
@VulcanMan6 1yr1Y
“So then smaller states with smaller populations just get no say”
No, it just means all people would get an equal say; under the electoral college, people in smaller states are given a larger "say" than people in larger states...which is blatantly anti-democratic. If some people have more of a say than others, then that's not democratic, that's just inflating the beliefs of a minority simply because they're in a minority. Everyone should have the same, equal vote, and if that means a minority belief is unpopular...then that's just how majoritarianism works. Plus, smaller states/towns always have their own local elections anyways, so I don't even understand the issue? If the majority of the country votes for Party A, then that's obviously who should lead nationally, but if your small state/town votes majority Party B, then your state/town should be lead by Party B...
@TruthHurts10111mos11MO
I am strongly Anti-Democratic and darn proud of it because I AM A REPUBLICAN NOT A DEMOCRAT!
@VulcanMan6 11mos11MO
I can't tell if you're joking or not, but the political party names are not actually representative of being pro-/anti-democracy.
More importantly, why are you strongly against democratic decision-making? So that implies that you believe that not everyone should be allowed to vote, right?
@TruthHurts10111mos11MO
Absolutely. So Democracy is majority tyranny. What I believe in is a Republic, which our nation, by the way, actually is -- and that means that consent of the governed is retained while individual rights, being uninfringable and inalienable, cannot be voted away by mob rule. Actually the party names are representative of being pro/anti-democracy. Republicans were founded to abolish slavery because they knew that just because the voters said slavery was right didn't make it legal. Democrats were founded to protect the institution of slavery and racism because that's what the majority wanted. So yes the parties are an anti/pro democratic system.
@CaucusCalculatorDemocrat11mos11MO
“Democrats were founded to protect the institution of slavery and racism because that's what the majority wanted.”
While it's true that the Democratic Party has a historical connection to the protection of slavery, it's crucial to recognize that political parties evolve over time, and their platforms change. For instance, during the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s, it was the Democrats who pushed for racial integration and equal rights for African Americans, while many Republicans opposed it. Today's Democratic Party is not the same as it was in the 19th century, and its platform embraces social justice and equal rights for all.
As for the electoral college, I understand the concern for… Read more
@VulcanMan6 11mos11MO
Except that's not true. The Republican Party originally got it's name from the anti-monarchist sentiments of the French Revolution; in fact, the original party name was Democratic-Republicans until the party ended up splitting into eventually just Democrats and Republicans. Neither party was created for, nor representative of, the systems of government "Republic" and "Democracy". Both parties are pro-Republic, and their differences are based on how much power the federal/state governments should hold, not on entire systems of governance.
Secondly, I'm not… Read more
