I don’t agree completely. Though I must admit. I did enjoy reading it. It kinda felt like I was reading the end of a novel about humanity. 👍🏼👍🏼
What an absolute Tory
@irrationally97 I reiterate: The masses are livestock by choice and consent.Nobody has to force humanity to be livestock. They select that life for themselves and for their children from among a range of options. It's not like, "oh, the rulers are taking advantage of the masses." No, the masses are giving away every advantage they have and the rulers are just reaching down to pick those advantages up. Like Napoleon always said, "I found the crown of Europe lying in the gutter, and all I did was pick it up with my sword."
Farmer are already being screwed lol
@Fuentes depends on the farmer really, but yeah definitely in some cases
That is the stupidest reasoning ever. Right now the farmers have absolutely no voice. If the vote was the popular vote, and the farmers all voted as a block, they would have tremendous power. As it stands now, they have no voice.
No such thing as a "poor" farmer. I've worked on farms since i was little and literally all of them have huge fucking houses, all their kids have brand new trucks, and they own more land than anyone else. Poor gas station worker, try that next time.A farmer is one person, cities have lots of people, everyone gets one vote. When you say "only city votes will matter" what you actually mean is "everyone's vote will matter the same amount, and cities are where most people who vote live." Yeah, that's called FAIR. Fuck the electoral college.
Is there any evidence that this is a problem in countries where the head of state is chosen via popular vote.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
The number of electors for each state is equal to the number of Representatives and Senators each state has in Congress - 535 total.
@Goforit1010 Yes, and the number of those is greatly skewed in favor of smaller states, giving them more voting power than the larger states.
Lol damn bro not everyone knows shit like this good to know u have a brain
@Zodiac10 If you’re going to disagree with my point, at least give a reason why.
I actually didn't mean to reply I just meant to post nope as an opinion.
@Zodiac10 I mean why did you say nope?
You should really educate yourself. So you want a couple of states to decide for the whole country then? Ridiculous.
@MarcoPolo22 you should educate yourself. Everyone would matter. There are a awful lot of people in those tiny digit electoral college states. It adds up a lot more then 1 or 2 votes here and there.
That would be true if each state had the same number of electoral votes but since the states with the most people have the most votes what your saying is not true. It's actually a good thing that people in California and New York don't control what happens in places like Kansas and Nebraska which is how it would be if the college was abolished and we based the election on popular vote. Either your uninformed or brainwashed. Get a clue.
@Razzamatazz001 It's still true. There are fewer people per elector in the very small states. For example, there are 570,000 people in Wyoming. Wyoming gets three votes in the electoral college. That's one vote per 190,000 people. California has a bit less than 40 million people, and gets 55 votes in the electoral college. That's about one vote per 720,000 people. So a voter in Wyoming has almost four times as much power in the presidential election as a voter in California.
@Razzamatazz001 It's even worse in the Senate, where 570,000 people in Wyoming have the same power as 39 million people in California.
So what I am hearing is that you are against democracy.
Not totally, but I am much more supportive of a Republic. I am mad though that we’ve allowed ourselves to fall into factions and the Duopoly that Madison and Washington warned against.
There is no compromising with democracy. Its either a democracy or it is not. Hiding behind the word "republic" means nothing in this regard.
@Soteris Democracy is a false god that allows for your consent to be overridden simply because you are outnumbered.
@Celtero As opposite to being overridden because of a minority?
@Soteris Yup. Because if push comes to shove the majority is more of a threat against the minority than vice versa.
@Celtero... Are you serious? The whole reason Democracy was made as a political philosophy is because people were tired of being ruled by the tyranny of the minority.
@Celtero How about early in USA's history where black men could not vote, women could not vote and some white people could not vote either?en.wikipedia.org/.../...nt_as_Population_Share.pngAs for the origin of Democracy that goes far back such as the ancient Greeks who tried to figure out a system of government without giving too much power to too few people.
@Soteris So, in your example the minority is supposed to be the wealthy elite or something? There's some irony then in the fact that the popular vote would've elected a Clinton, aka someone who made tens of millions all thanks to being in a political office... not exactly a representative of the majority. I was hoping for an example outside of the US... but I guess we're apparently the only frame of reference that matters.
@Celtero Does it matter who the minority is? The results are always the same after all. It always leads to discrimination and abuse of power.As for examples outside of USA, would you even know enough about the world to understand the reference? I could for example reference the ancient nation state of Sparta in Greece who famously had a stratified society where "Spartans" ruled over the general populace that functioned as defacto slaves.
Direct democracy never works (people vote on what the laws should be done) which is why we have a representative democracy and their are many perfectly functional states (many with lower failed state indexes than the US)upload.wikimedia.org/.../...agile_States_Index.svg where the head of state is chosen by popular vote. We have an allocation of power to the federal versus state governments to prevent certain regions from being crushed by the big cities.
@Ad_Quid_Orator almost all of them have either head of state not chosen by popular vote OR legislature not chosen by popular vote, its essentially unheard of to not do one or the other. we have the house for popular vote
And many have parliaments and HOS elected by the popular vote of the province and population respectively.
@Ad_Quid_Orator so none of that refutes my point that popular vote driven systems don't work. they all depend on an electoral college somewhere in the process
It does refute the point that we need a head of state chosen by an electoral college versus the popular vote to prevent "pure democracy".
@Ad_Quid_Orator it doesn't because its far too much of the system run on popular vote, you have the house for that
Again. many functional countries have a parliament elected by the popular vote of the representatives' province and a HOS elected by the popular vote of the entire country.
@Ad_Quid_Orator you're being reducitonist by ignoring the fact that all of those countries use a non popular vote at some point in their process. hell a paraliment is an electoral college unto itself
No I'm just pointing out the obvious that a HOS can be elected by popular vote and the country still be functional (often more so than the US).
@Ad_Quid_Orator and then you're ignoring that any country that does use that method has a non popular vote somewhere else
No I acknowledge that, your trying to dodge the point that a government could have a HOS decided by popular vote without becoming a "pure democracy".
@Ad_Quid_Orator but this country can't. we already have popular vote for 1/3 of the government as it is
And many countries have a parliament decided by the popular vote of their respective provinces (like our congress) and a HOS decided by popular vote.
@Ad_Quid_Orator now you're moving the goalpost. that's not a true popular vote, even the senate is selected via popular vote within its own state
Actually you're just straw manning now because I'm not calling for "pure democracy".
@Ad_Quid_Orator the house is already pure democracy, you are calling for the head of state to be also, that's 66% of the country run by pure democracy, more than any succesful state, and you people want to change the senate alsowe also depend more on head of state than other countries, it can't be done without civil war
We're less dependent because we have a federal system and if that's your definition of a "pure democracy" there are many functional countries with that kind of system.
There would still be the Senate, with two from each state. Two from California, with 40 million, or 12% of the population, and two from Wyoming, with just over half a million, or 0.2% of the total population of the country.
That is true. And that is good. But all states should also have a say in the election of the President as well.
Their voters would have an equal say, not an outsized one. That's all.
Yeah, but remember, it's a union of individual states. The citizens of each state vote collectively as a unit.