Is this protecting democracy?

[gatixek710]

Waltz calls for eliminating the electoral college. That is a clear and present threat to American Democracy.

[Dargil]

• The Electoral College ensures that that all parts of the country are involved in selecting the President of the United States. However, it gives too much power to swing states and allows the presidential election to be decided by a handful of states.
• The Electoral College was created to protect the voices of the minority from being overwhelmed by the will of the majority. However one motivation for it was being rooted in slavery and racism. (The 3/5 rule).
• The Electoral College can preclude calls for recounts or demands for run-off elections by states, giving more certainty to presidential elections. However, democracy should function on the will of the people, allowing one vote per adult legal citizen.

There are pluses and minuses for it. On the balance, I support it, given modern Democrat election shenanigans. But I'm not a scholar in it.

[Anonymous]

Yes and no.

No its not protecting actual democracy.

It is however "protecting democracy" for fiendish shitlibs who thinks the end justifies the means as long as dems win the election.
For example: Border wall is racist and exenophphobic! Until Biden changed his mind and decided to fund more wall! OMG the orange menace had the nerve to turn down a "border bill" that gave more money to Ukraine than to protect the border! Time to complain about Trump again! How dare he turn down a bill that included the wall we think is racist and xeneophobic!

Its not about whats being said for shitlibs but who says it.

[ManInChains]

That’s rich coming from the party who nominated their presidential candidate undemocratically 🥴


That is the exact opposite of protecting democracy. The only one actually working to protect democracy as well as our republic is Donald Trump. If you don’t see that, you have serious brain damage…

[Syntosi]

The electoral collage, or "American Democracy" as you call it is actually inherently anti-democratic. It robs you of some of your right to vote by making some peoples votes count as more or less than others.

Abolishing the electoral collage is objectively a good thing for the country and a good thing for democracy.

[gatixek710]

Democracy is the tyranny of the majority.

[Syntosi]

What you just said is only said by those that are evil and upset that they can't get their way.

[gatixek710]

you mean like the democrats being the only people who want to get rid of the electoral college when they lose the election?

[Syntosi]

As opposed to claiming to be supporting the electoral collage in the name of "Democracy" while in reality only doing so because its the only way you can win elections?

The fact remains that "Democracy" has a definition and the electoral collage is objectively anti-democratic. You either stand for Democracy, or you stand against it.

[gatixek710]

I stand against democracy, proudly so. As did the founding fathers.

[Syntosi]

You said it, not me. So to answer your original question, abolishing the electoral collage IS defending democracy and more specifically against people like you.

[gatixek710]

lol, retard. electoral college is the default operation for the representative republic of the United States of America. SO try again.

[Syntosi]

Slavery was also the "default operation" for USA. The default does not mean its "good". In fact, the founding fathers specifically wanted people to modify the laws and even the constitution on a regular basis to reflect modern times. Stagnation and regression is literally undemocratic according to the founding fathers.

[Syntosi]

Should be unAmerican and not unDemocratic but its honestly whatever

[gatixek710]

The entire premise of the United States is to protect rights against tyranny. Democracy invites tyranny.

[Syntosi]

The entire premise of the United States is to break free from the old ways and embrace change. They also specifically decided on a Democratic system when they could have chosen any government system they wanted because they wanted people to be in control over their own destiny.

[goaded]

There's a reason no other country in the history of the world has copied the Electoral College. The Senate gives smaller states an adequate say in how the country is run, having a head of state who doesn't necessarily get the most votes is ridiculous.

(You might like to consider instant-runoff voting for president; it avoids extremists gaining power.)

[gatixek710]

If you haven't noticed, America isn't put on this planet to copy other countries. Waltz is a threat to America's democracy by your own standards.

[goaded]

I never said it was, and no, he isn't.

[gatixek710]

He's a danger who must be stopped

[goaded]

No, that's simply insane and dangerous to say so.

I remember when presidential candidates stood up for the truth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrnRU3ocIH4

[gatixek710]

well gee, that's the kind of shit you morons have been saying about Trump for 8 years now. Including the sitting president.

[goaded]

We're not the ones talking about "second amendment remedies", or how Harris supporters would be in danger at a Trump rally, or how police shouldn't be so gentle, or how all that's needed is a Purge or Kristalnacht.

[gatixek710]

No, you're the propagandists who are supporting a literal idiot to be president of the untied states who was installed as the candidate, not elected.

[goaded]

If you don't like her, vote against her. You should be able to make a case without making stuff up.

[gatixek710]

Everything I just stated is true. She is an idiot. She was not on any ballot during the primary election. She did not receive a single vote during the democrat primary. She was installed.

[goaded]

Idiots don't pass the California bar. I'll retract that statement if it turns out you have, too.

[Avicenna]

Lol, you haven’t passed the California bar, goaded- stop lying. There’s too much stuff you don’t know that a foreign lawyer who had passed it would. And how would you personally have gotten bar eligible in CA (it’s possible)?

Anyway, it’s not like first-past-the-post in the U. K. or Germany‘s 5% minimum (or three direct seats won) are „Democratic“.

[goaded]

@Avicenna When did I even suggest I'd passed the California bar. Guess who I was talking about who has, and who he was calling an idiot.

All three countries are democracies, that's the point. The people choose the government through elections that are free and reasonably fair. Countries choose different compromises to try to ensure fairness, the US EC is probably the worst.

[Avicenna]

Well, Harris did pass the California bar, which is the nation’s toughest, but there’s clearly something lacking with her judging from her inability to communicate.

Neither the 5% rule nor „first-past-the-post“ is about the fairness- notice the Lib Dems made reforming it a requirement for joining a coalition.

The electoral college is best understood as part of the checks and balances in the US system as well as its federalism. Seen within that light, it’s clearly fair. California already has outsized influence on US politics due to political contributions.

[goaded]

@Avicenna What do you mean "political contributions"? It takes about four times as many Californian voters to have the same say as voters from small states in the presidential race. How is that fair? States all get 2 senators, whether their population is half a million or twenty. That's enough of a check and balance.

The only reason anyone likes the EC is because it gives their side an advantage, and only their side.

[Anonymous]

America was never a democracy. it's a constitutional republic that gives every state a voice and not be drowned out by mob mentality

Democrats and neocons want city folk to overpower country folk with their degeneracy and force them to comply

and if they don't get their way, they'll just assassinate their political opponents

[goaded]

Ignore the Senate, why don't you? Senators and Representatives represent their states, the president should represent everybody.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded unless there's a 100% unanimous vote, no president is ever gonna represent everybody and it's not even about the president but the policies made by the party that is most important

[goaded]

Trump's the only president to have acted as if he was only responsible for members of his own party. He refused aid to states hit by disasters if they didn't vote for him.

[gatixek710]

@goaded wow, interesting pivot that didn't answer the question I asked. Don't worry - we all know why you're silent on EC when democrats win. You want to change the rules when you lose to ensure permanent wins. At least be honest about it.

[goaded]

@gatixek710 Try paying attention to the conversation. This conversation isn't about that, which I already answered, but you refuse to believe me, or facts.

[gatixek710]

@goaded yes, I refuse to believe you. Because you are lying.

[goaded]

We both know that's not true.

[gatixek710]

@goaded I know exactly that it's true. It's the standard operating procedure for democrats.

[goaded]

You're the one claiming more democracy (popular vote for president) means less democracy.

[gatixek710]

@goaded I'm merely using the democrat phrase 'threat to democracy' to describe anything I don't like. I was following their playbook... unless... you think that's not a good phrase to be throwing around so recklessly.

[goaded]

@gatixek710 Three questions:

A president conspiring to stay in power despite losing re-election is a threat to democracy, yes or no?

A president illegally interfering with state election officials is a threat to democracy, yes or no?

A constitutional amendment to change the way votes are counted or who can vote is a threat to democracy, yes or no?

[gatixek710]

@goaded Is it protecting democracy to install a presidential candidate that no person voted for in the primary?

[goaded]

@gatixek710 What was it you incorrectly claimed about me earlier? Oh, yes, "wow, interesting pivot that didn't answer the question I asked." (You hadn't asked a question.)

I asked you three. Answer them or gtfo.

[gatixek710]

@goaded This is my question, you can go fuck yourself.

[andreasderjuengere]

Leaving away a 'discussion' about differences between a democracy and a democracy...

politicians all over the planet not longer care for the people who voted for them.

Citizens have become tax fodder, cannon fodder and voting fodder only.

Dream on if you must, though.

[andreasderjuengere]

oops - typo :) - I meant a republicacy, of course... (the smarter ones among us will have noticed that)

[RowdyYates]

I have a few ideas


1. Anyone caught cheating in the election gets the death penalty.


2. Actual federal voter ID will be required to vote, and that process of getting the ID will involve proving your United States citizen.


3. Voting day will be made a paid holiday


4. Voting will be done in one day


5. After the election we can talk about changing the system, but not 60 days before the election.

[NamerOfStars]

"Letting the President be chosen by the will of the people" is a threat to democracy?

Just because the Democrats are diving headfirst into the pools of madness and stupidity doesn't mean that YOU have to do the same.

[RoronoaZoro8]

Electoral college is inherently undemocratic. The college can vote for

https://youtu.be/90RajY2nrgk?si=97BVMHa2DXmO_6JO

.

[gatixek710]

Lol, you posted that twat Adam as evidence? Lol.

[RoronoaZoro8]

There's many more articles about why the electoral college is bad

[gatixek710]

All written by people who want to benefit politically.

[RoronoaZoro8]

And you don't want to benefit politically?

[Agape93]

How?

[gatixek710]

EC is foundational to how a representative republic is run. He wants to eliminate that. He's a threat.

[Agape93]

Removing it means that to win, the populace actually gets to decide. So how is it a threat, to make the citizens actually decide by majority?

[gatixek710]

Removing it means you want to violate the constitution. You want to dismantle the foundations on which the country is founded and guided. That is a threat.

[Agape93]

More like dismantle a part of it, the constitution can and has been changed before, they're called ammendments.

[gatixek710]

If waltz and you want to go live in a democracy, feel free to move. The US will remain a representative republic.

[Agape93]

And if the ec is dismantled, will you move?

[goaded]

It would still be a representative republic (which is a form of democracy).

[gatixek710]

@goaded Advocating against the EC is advocating against the constitution of the US. That makes you a threat.

[Agape93]

No it isn't. Again, the constitution has been changed more than once. Those ammendments aren't threats either.

[gatixek710]

The EC isn't an amendment.

[Agape93]

But removing it would be.

[gatixek710]

And suggesting such is a threat to American democracy.

[Agape93]

Again, no it isn't, no more a threat than any other ammendment, and certainly not when it forces politicians to actually listen to people.

[Agape93]

So again if it is removed, will you leave?

[gatixek710]

You don't want the EC, you should leave now. So interesting you shitlibs had nothing to say about EC in 2020 when Biden won. Or for either of Clinton or Obama's terms.

[Agape93]

For the 3rd time, if the ec is removed, will you leave?

[Agape93]

Libertarian, not liberal. Nice try.

[gatixek710]

if you leave the country now for being against the EC

[Agape93]

Nah, I'm staying put. But if you won't leave, then don't expect others to. Grow up.

[gatixek710]

lol. A fake libertarian lecturing other people is hilarious.

[goaded]

"Advocating against the EC is advocating against the constitution of the US. That makes you a threat." So, the people who advocated for the first amendment were a threat? Or is it only the amendments you don't like?

[gatixek710]

@goaded Why are you shitlibs against the EC when a democrat loses?

[Agape93]

Actual libertarian, but whatever. I don't have the desire to debate stupid shit with a guy who thinks ammendments are threats. They're not, they're just a threat to your parties grip on power.

[gatixek710]

lol, from the side that throws out the phrase "threat to democracy" when it means "threat do democrat power. clown.

[Agape93]

When did democraps get brought in lol 😂

[goaded]

"Why are you shitlibs against the EC when a democrat loses?"
Why are you stupid? Ignoring the dumb insult, the EC is the only reason a candidate with the most votes, often millions of them, loses an election.

You'd be against it if Republicans ever lost despite winning the popular vote. The fact that they are the only party to benefit shows why you're so keen on keeping an objectively unfair and unnecessary system.

[gatixek710]

@goaded Again, answer the question. Where the fuck were you, Biden, Waltz when Biden won in 2020? Where was the outrage against the EC then?

[goaded]

@gatixek710 You mean when the candidate with the most votes won the election, despite the EC?

We were still against it, it's stupid, objectively unfair and unnecessary. It was just more obvious in 2000 and 2016 (and 1876, 1888), when it led to the loser of the popular vote winning the presidency.

[gatixek710]

@goaded No you weren't. You have nothing to say unless a democrat loses.

[goaded]

States have passed the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in 2007, '08, '09, '10, '11, '13, '14, '18, '19, '23, and '24, so, no, it's been an ongoing fight.

[gatixek710]

@goaded That's not an attempt to get rid of the EC, it's a way to cheat around it.

[goaded]

There's no practical difference, apart from the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact being easier to implement.

And it's not cheating, it's totally legal. Cheating is something like conspiring to steal a presidency by, say, bringing baseless lawsuits, interfering with state election officials, creating slates of fake electors, pressuring officials to break the law for you, or, when all that fails, sending an armed mob to attack the Capitol where over a hundred seditious Republicans are waiting to install you as president against the express wish of the voters.

[gatixek710]

@goaded Oh, you mean like coercing social media companies to repress stories that would be damaging to your candidate? That kind of cheating?

[goaded]

Funny, I've just been having a discussion with someone else who doesn't understand the word "coerce", either. If you think Musk wouldn't have (temporarily) suppressed the story (which looked so much like Russian disinformation even Fox News wouldn't touch it), the Biden campaign (which wasn't in power) wasn't coercing anyone.

No, I mean conspiring to break the law cheating. Like Trump did when he conspired to steal the presidency by bringing baseless lawsuits, interfering with state election officials, creating slates of fake electors, pressuring officials to break the law for him, and, when all that failed, sending an armed mob to attack the Capitol where over a hundred seditious Republicans are waiting to install him as president against the express wish of the voters.

FYI: suggesting someone perform an action that's just a "minor breach" of a law is solid evidence of conspiracy to break the law.

[gatixek710]

@goaded yay! Gaslighting. A shit libs favorite sport.

[goaded]

It's literally all in court documents.