Those terms are not mutually exclusive. We are both. Its like saying I'm a man, not a gentleman. You CAN be one without the other, but you can also be both. People who say this are usually saying it to justify disenfranchising someone.
When did who you vote for become more public?
- Thread starter dawgstudent
- Start date
- Status
We are not a democracy and never have been. We are a Representative Republic.
Well they do with me. NIL changes everything but I never wanted to give a Rebel a penny that they could possibly use to pay recruits.
If I were setting up the legislative branch today, I'd simply have 1 legislating body. The history of why and how we came to have the Senate is clear.
As far as the EC, looking at it objectively, I'd likely be far more in favor of it if my party came in 2nd in (after today) 8 of the last 9 presidential elections. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The electoral college was a compromise to ensure that states interests were protected and not ignored just because they were a smaller population state. Small states at the time were understandably concerned about ceding their sovereignty to a government if they were not going to have a meaningful say in government policy or administration. And that was a legitimate concern back then, when the federal government was much less intrusive. It's much more of a concern now that we basically treat the 9th and 10th amendment as meaningless.
I love the bicameral nature with one based on population and the other simply existing as a state. It moderates our federal governing.
I wish for 2 changes.
1) increase the size of the house and make the per rep population closer to what it was when the constitution was written. Our modern reps are covering more population than was originally intended and that combined with 2 year terms has turned them into fundraising machines rather than legislators. If you can't cram them into the chambers to vote, make proxy voting available.
2) toss the filibuster. The design of the senate itself is the mechanism to give states an equal voice regardless of population. Filibuster further amplifies what is already there - to the detriment of getting things done IMO.
Nah, more like I'd see it as a bootleg work-around that keeps me competitive even though I've been getting my *** kicked. The EC is a government handout.
I could agree with your (1). Makes sense.
On (2)... I don't know, I kind of like that the government finds it hard to do anything. I want them as small and out of my business as I can get, in most cases.
Let's meet back here in 8 years and see how everyone is feeling. You never know, you may appreciate the hedge at that point. And I will be defending your right to have that hedge, not trying to cut it down at the roots.
That's a fair opinion. I just don't want 40 of 100 to be able to obstruct the functioning of an entire bicameral legislative body. The two separate bodies with 1 being non-pop is enough moderating for me. But that's subjective. Although I do think the founders would have built that in had they wanted it.
As of tomorrow, one party will have won 1 national election going back to 1992. I guess it's hard to stop DUE UP?
And again, the EC is extremely unlikely to undergo any fundamental changes so my griping is just that.
I am not registered to a party, so I cannot participate in that part of the process in my state.
The United States of America is made up of 50 separate "countries" and is basically the original EU. Those 50 (13 at the time) states made an agreement to have a Federal Government to oversee their mutual protection and help govern inter-state commerce. They first tried an Articles of Confederation but it proved to not give the central Federal Government enough teeth to actually be viable. So then we had the Constitution to replace that previous agreement. It was always a balance of why would a small, less populated state, agree to this joining if they couldn't maintain control within their borders. Each state had things that would be helpful to the whole, but each state also had different needs and beliefs. So if a small area of high population could control things that didn't pertain to them, it was a problem. The EC allows that if one state has say an 80 - 20 split on the Federal Government, that doesn't spill over to a state that has a 55 - 45 split. Each state has their say in the issues that govern all the states without influence from another state. The agreement does take population into account by giving weighted say to more populated states. So California has a say in their 54 votes but no say in Mississippi's 6 votes. A straight vote would move millions of votes to other states.
So California's 39 million would just overwhelm Mississippi's 3 million. So why would you even vote in Mississippi?
So California's 39 million would just overwhelm Mississippi's 3 million. So why would you even vote in Mississippi?
Last edited:
I wouldn't call it un American, but it definitely needs to be fixed. It was originally done as a compromise because they couldn't agree on how to choose the chief executive. They debated on having Congress choose among other things. Eventually, they punted by just copying the Congress-you get the same number of votes you get in Congress and left it to the states to decide how to divide them up. There has been huge support for abolishing it in the past. Abolishing it passed the House in 1969 by a vote of 399-70, but died in a Senate filibuster to Southern segregationists and midwestern conservatives. Segregationists saw it as the only tool they had left to basically undo the black vote in the South. (Atlanta is the new fly in that ointment.) Of course there would be new problems with just going to a popular vote nation wide, but there has to be some compromise that will make it a bit more fair. Right now, no matter how you vote, almost half the country has no voice half the time.
I am not arguing that race relations improved under Obama.
I am saying Obama didnt turn the county into a place where politics is a be all/end all for every aspect of many people's lives and those they will/wont associate with.
You continue to try to make claim they are the same thing, but they are two different things.
well considering my brother and mother both passed away in 2019 and my dad died in 2020 that would be difficult. but you keep being you twink.
We are a Democratic Republic.
We are a Representative Republic.
Etc etc.
Everyone can call it someting slightly different while having the same meaning- none of it changes reality.
Reality is-
- we need to stop claiming 'your vote counts' when for tens of millions...it doesn't.
- we can be a Democratic/Representative Republic while having direct elections for the President. The representation comes in the Legislative Branch where we elect Representatives to represent our states. One part represents he states in equal number and one part represents the states based in population. Both over-represent states with small populations when compared to large population states.
- A Senator represents only his/her state, so it makes sense for only votes from that state to count when voting for that Senator.
- A President represents the country, so it makes sense for votes from all people of that country to count.
Despite the baseless claim, no mob rule happens simply based on each vote counting equally.
Nonsense. Simply wrong. Representative Republic isn't even a thing. Its like saying a Republican Republic. Or Representative representer. Republic IS representative. We are a Representative Democracy, and to argue differently, is asinine.
My claim is that Obama hurt race relations in this country. That had an affect on politics.
There votes do count. They might not count as much in a presidential election but they count in senator races and representative races equally for their state.
I'm sorry you guys hate the great constitution of the USA.
A President represents the 50 united states. He (She) must earn a majority of their electoral votes to govern. The EC gives him (her) legitimacy and a mandate. No President could operate under the idea of a mandate if he (or she) were only elected by 5-6 urban areas.
One, I am aware that they count for down ballot votes. The discussion is not about down ballot votes, it is specifically about presidential. And you directly state that you agree with my comment about presidential votes being unequal in weight.
I do not hate the constitution and that is a dumb thing to claim. Our government has a system in place to change the constitution thru amendments. This is something that has been used for centuries now. Your comment applies to anyone who has supported or voted for changing the constitution in the past.
that is a very dumb thing to claim.
Which side IS on God's side? Let me guess - the one convicted of dozens of felonies for trying to keep under wraps the fact that he was dicking a woman who was not his wife?
You realize that no matter which party you are referencing there, nobody will have won 8 of the last 9 presidential elections? Before today, Republicans and democrats have each won 3 out of the last 6 presidential elections.
The bill of rights was "changing the Constitution." Those dudes must have hated the great Constitution of the USA.
I think that both Bush and Obama, when running on a stated goal of unifying, were sincere. The fact that neither could move the needle tells you more about what the political parties will allow a candidate to do than anything else.
He's talking about the popular vote, which is like talking about who got the most yards in a game. Insightful, but not determinative.
Why it upsets you so much when I point out that your guy praises dictators worldwide (easily demonstrable from his own speeches), quotes Hitler (again from his own mouth) and the half of his former closest advisors who didn't go on record declaring him unfit and a threat to democracy (unprecedented for members of your own party) formed Project25 him to establish Nazi Party style political party vetting to ensure that everyone who gets appointed is completely loyal to him, not the country?
Would it bother you if I pointed out that more recently, he said that he needed generals like Hitler had, underscoring his insistence on personal loyalty, while at the same time belying his complete ignorance on history that tells us that Hitler's generals tried to kill him three times?
I don't write Trump's speeches or make him say crap that he does. Perhaps you should ask yourself why it doesn't bother you to have someone morally bankrupt taking over the party.
Well, there is no popular vote for the presidential election. Hence no party having won 7 of the last 8 presidential elections.
If the popular vote meant something, you'd likely see a pretty decent political realignment. Pretty hard to predict as there are multiple axes coalitions could form along, and then of course there are tons of voters that select a party affiliation not based on party but on something like vibes or who they want to be affiliated with for other reasons.
I dont know if you are dumb or not. You do post some really dumb stuff, regardless.
I dont think you actually thought through your claim that I hate the Constitution just because I want something changed.
By claiming I(and others) hate the Constitution because we dislike something that is currently in there, you are also claiming anyone who has supported or voted for changes to the Constitution also hates the Constitution.
Both in raw numbers, and in % of population, Americans are more violent than immigrants and commit more crimes in general.
"...data from the Texas Department of Public Safety estimated the rate at which undocumented immigrants are arrested for committing crimes. The study found that undocumented immigrants are arrested at less than half the rate of native-born U.S. citizens for violent and drug crimes and a quarter the rate of native-born citizens for property crimes." -“Unauthorized Immigration, Crime, and Recidivism: Evidence From Texas,” Final report to the National Institute of Justice, award number 2019-R2-CX-0058, January 2024, NCJ 308552
Keep on allowing yourself to be scared to death by the puppet masters...
Unfortunately, the sheep won't read them. We don't believe in subpoenas that hand cell phone records to both prosecution and defense. We believe that Biden controls the DOJ with such an iron fist that he can attack Trump any jurisdiction in America at any time, otherwise Trump would have his eagle scout badge by now. What we can't figure out is why Biden allows high ranking Democratic Congressman to be tried and convicted and then his party has the AUDACITY to call for the removal of that member when proven a criminal.
Even more puzzling is how Biden let his own son get prosecuted despite his control of the DoJ. Uncanny...and perhaps the craziest thing of all is the that Biden did all of this while clearly incompetent and feeble.
Great advice. We should get you in touch with this guy to see if you can talk him off the ledge:
- Status
Get unlimited access today.