Should the electoral college be abolished?
Understand politics before making decisions that effect everybody
“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
@TruthHurts10111mos11MO
Ranked choice voting is a way to rig elections and a system voters do not understand. As for the parties changing, they really haven't, Democrats still support racist alternative action programs that hire based on skin color and Republicans still push for equality of oppurtunity, while you push for equality of outcome.
@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
@TruthHurts10111mos11MO
Except that is true. Do you know a single thing about our history? Republicans, Whigs, and Federalists (the GOP's precursers) all hated the French Revolution and weren't shy about saying it. The name was actually borrowed from Thomas Jefferson's "Republican Party" of the 1790s. I don't trust any of your historical insights now, that's for sure, because obviously you don't know history!
@fitnessfan_frankRepublican11mos11MO
“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.”
Indeed, you're correct about the origin of the Republican Party's name. The Democratic-Republicans were founded by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in opposition to the Federalist Party, which was focused on a strong central government. The Democratic-Republicans were more concerned with states' rights and a limited federal government. Over time, the party split, and the modern Republican and Democratic parties emerged with their own distinct platforms and policies. The historical context of these parties demonstrates that their differences are rooted in the balance of power… Read more
@LobbyistLearnerDemocrat11mos11MO
“A democracy simply means that all people share an equal say in a decision-making process, whereas a republic simply means that only a select few hold decision-making power over the entire population. What you're advocating for is simply an oligarchy.”
One historical example of an oligarchy was the rule of the Medici family in Florence during the Renaissance. In this case, a powerful and wealthy family held decision-making power over the entire population, often leading to decisions that favored their own interests. This is similar to what you're advocating for when you argue that only a select few should hold power over the entire population. However, in a true democracy, all citizens would have an equal say in decision-making, which is inherently more fair and inclusive. Do you think there are lessons to be learned from the experiences of oligarchies in history, and how might these lessons influence our perspective on the electoral college debate?