Americans, wouldn't you prefer to have direct universal suffrage for elections?

[Julie4]

[NamerOfStars]

Um, we do. Every position except the Presidency (and the Vice Presidency, I suppose, but it's all one ticket) is filled by direct vote. But would I want that one done the same way? Of course. The electoral college was a political compromise to persuade smaller states to ratify the Constitution (which becomes clearer if you read the earlier Articles of Confederation, which flopped). The idea that I'm politically going to have more in common with some crazy anti-government Gladesman than some random dude in, say, Minnesota, simply because of the states we live in, is absurd. The idea that someone in Hawaii has their vote count more than mine because their state has fewer people is, too- as is the FACT that my vote counts more than theirs because Florida is a swing state.

If you absolutely MUST keep it, then do like Maine and Nebraska do, and split the votes up according to the percentage of the votes each candidate gets. It'd make third-party candidates more viable, too- and increase voter participation in states like Illinois and Texas, where one party controls the state government.

[WhiteSteve]

I’m frustrated by the Electoral College because it allows uneducated, uninformed people to participate too powerfully. We have hyper-religious pockets of the country who seem to live in a somewhat separate reality from the rest of us. We are designed to be a secular government, separation of church and state.

Yet the electoral college allows for people in the Bible Belt to swing elections, whose entire worldview is steered by this unwavering commitment to religion, which, with all due respect, may not even be the truth, and regardless, isn’t unequivocally “the way” in America, and thusly shouldn’t be the reason people do or don’t have certain rights. The EC contributes strongly these days to an absence of separation of church and state, and that’s even more important in 2024 than it was in 1776.

These folks have a mind towards “restriction”, not “allowance”, and that’s antithetical to “freedom.”

[Ariesman81]

And if everyone had a moral compass we wouldn't need government at all and we would all be free. But reality doesn't work that way. And you forget that the founding fathers were all religious men guided by a moral compass. So even if you believe in separation of Church and state, it is inherently part of our constitution.

[Shamalien]

AI detected

[Julie4]

I'm not sure direct universal suffrage would prevent that.

[Avicenna]

White Steve has the usual arrogant totalitarian approach- he thinks he‘s better than people who have different beliefs and doesn’t think they deserve to vote (and maybe not even live).

[WhiteSteve]

@Avicenna I shouldn’t think I’m better than misogynists, racists, homophobes, etc?

Please defend your counter-position to that, I’d love to hear it….

[WhiteSteve]

@Shamalien people keep saying this to me, and I’m not totally sure what it means. But if it means what I think, I take it as a compliment

[Avicenna]

No, you’re not- you are the antithesis of tolerance. And why do you assume all of your political opponents have the views you abhor? Don’t you think that’s dehumanizing?

You can’t dictate to people what they believe. And there’s a lot more to politics than social issues anyway.

[WhiteSteve]

@Ariesman81 but moral compass isn’t derived from religion. Surely you don’t think you’d be running around murdering and robbing and raping without it? And I’m ok with Constitutional guidance, but I think this many centuries later, we need to be making adjustments. That was written with a feather by firelight, lmao, I doesn’t completely hold up in 2024, as we’d expect

[WhiteSteve]

@Avicenna I’m only intolerant of intolerance itself. “Don’t have a negative perception of people because of their gender, race, or sexual orientation”….. WHY IS THAT A PROBLEM? I’m asking for nothing “active” out of you or anyone, it’s just “don’t be shitty to people or care about their life outcomes less than your own.” That’s called being a decent human being. It’s unconscionable that anyone would argue to the contrary. Do you think I want to waste time out of my life “being on a high horse” and lecturing people about things you should’ve learned in nursery school, just about how to treat everyone with equal respect? I wouldn’t give a flying fuck about what anyone else was doing if people simply observed that.

I don’t want to dehumanize anybody. I want my fellow humans to ACT more human. And it doesn’t always come in the form of active persecution, it’s more commonly just ACCEPTED in exchange for some selfish benefit, and THAT’S fucked up. All the economy, the infrastructure, everything could collapse…. all we’d be left with is how we treat each other. Social issues are A-1 top priority. That’s the foundation of everything, and the one thing that TRULY matters to the goodness of our souls. Making money is distantly secondary.

[Avicenna]

What you’re going to have to accept is that you can’t assume what others think and you can’t force your values and ideology on others. How do you know your tens of millions of political opponents are disrespecting your favored groups of people?

I’m Jewish and I really hate anti-Semites. They’ve been around for thousands of years and will always be around. I don’t approve of them, but they’re there. There will always be people who don’t share your perspective.

[WhiteSteve]

@Avicenna “accepting” I can do. “RESPECTING”…. absolutely fucking not. I will always disrespect those who are disrespectful without reasonable provocation.

Good luck with the internal anti-Semitism once Trump and BiBi turn Gaza into a parking lot and there are no more brown people for your fellow right wingers to rally with Israel over. They’ll be right back to blaming “globalist Jews” for everything.

[Avicenna]

For quite some time now it’s been abundantly clear to me that leftists are the big danger to us Jews. You’ve thrown your lot in with the Marxists and Islamists, who hate us with every fiber of their being.

As for your stupid Marxist propaganda about Gaza, it’s clear you deliberately ignore that Israel is defending itself against its many Islamist enemies. by the way, there lots of „brown“ Jews, but Marxist propaganda would never admit to that….. it’s all about being the right race for leftists…..,

But everyone should acede to your views because you’re so respectful…..

[WhiteSteve]

@Avicenna here we go, I was waiting, your favorite.

I’ll say it loud for the people in the back: THERE ARE NO MARXISTS IN American GOVERNMENT. ZERO. NONE. IT’S LITERALLY “NOT A THING.”

That was the craziest thing about it…. our beef with Kamala as a candidate is that she’s not progressive enough and is too much of a “corporate Democrat.” You guys calling her a Marxist is WILD to me😂

[Avicenna]

Maybe you need to review her campaign proposals, including from 2019. Bernie Sanders explicitly said she was just pretending to be a „corporate Democrat“.

And just drop the leftist propaganda already- there are Marxists in your party, and your party dominates the federal bureaucracy. No one believes you when you try to pretend there are no Marxists in the federal government. Here’s a hint- some of them are found in the regulatory agencies.

[WhiteSteve]

@Avicenna cool, name the Marxists and include some policy positions that firmly fall under “Marxism.” Like I’m unsure if you know what Marxism actually is, the way you talk about it

[Avicenna]

How about you prove your claim that there aren’t any Marxists out of almost three million federal employees?

I don’t care what you’re „unsure“ about- you always have excuses for extremists.

[Ariesman81]

I believe religion is 100% where a person's moral compass is derived. And ultimately where government gets it's authority from. I don't rape murder and steal because of the potential consequences if I do. Whether you see the correlation between religion and government is irrelevant. And frankly... I think you're more Republican than you care to admit.

[WhiteSteve]

@Ariesman81 hang on…if there were no consequences you WOULD do that stuff? Punishment, and not an instinctive recognition that you’re harming another human, is why you DON’T do that?

I want to make sure that’s what you’re telling me, but if that is what you’re telling me…. my GOD, man😱

[WhiteSteve]

@Avicenna you can’t really prove a negative🤔 And you’re not a dumb guy, man, you know better than that, that it’s much more disingenuous to ask me to impossibly sift through every federal employee, as opposed to providing just a few examples of elected politicians who are Marxists-by-name, or Marxist by policy.

What is extreme about legally ensuring targeted demographics of people can’t be targeted? You speak as if something like that would be a bad thing

[Ariesman81]

Yeah... because my human nature is to sin. But thankfully, my moral compass is able to override my desire to.

[WhiteSteve]

@Ariesman81 Jiminy Christmas man…. i don’t have any religion, and I just know that sucks to do, egregiously so. Disappointing that other humans can’t just accomplish that without some kind of legal or supernatural threat. People are worse than I thought then…

[Ariesman81]

Yeah... it shows

[Avicenna]

So how do you know there aren’t any Marxists in the federal government?

The targeting of Jews by Islamists and Marxists without anything being done about it by Democrats tells me no one can ultimately rely on the Democrats for protection.

[WhiteSteve]

@Avicenna Because all the people that you guys scream are Marxists, AREN’T Marxists?😂

[Avicenna]

Alas, they are. And just because you delude yourself you aren’t an extremist doesn’t mean you aren’t.

Marxists are Control freaks who want to control what others think and do. You and many other leftists fit that description, as do, among others, the control freaks demanding „equity“ and telling others who to hire and promote.

[WhiteSteve]

@Avicenna I don’t know, man. If you want to be a slave to corporate oligarchs like Donald Trump and Elon Musk, have fun with that. Baffling that you think these people give a shit about your well-being. Plenty of hollow promises from Democrats, but at least on their face they have good intentions. You’re grabbing your ankles and smearing the KY Jelly on your b-hole FOR these guys, because someone taught you to be irrationally afraid of Communism, which isn’t even on the table for discussion in America. Most of these objections just feel like you’re concerned about losing your pole position as a (I’m guessing) straight, white man, honestly. Like you really want remain on top, and only want a handful of people of color, at most, and only specific ones whose cultures you perceive as smart and docile, to be allowed to penetrate that wall.

[Avicenna]

You‘re assuming good intentions from the control freak Democrats.

And you’re showing a lot of standard Marxist anti-white incitement, which these days is based on race. You are a self-hating, race-baiting, Marxist white man.

A reasonable person would not assume straight white men „are in pole position“- there is clearly lots of discrimination against them by the Marxists who are actually in power, supported by useful idiots like you.

I’m Hispanic and Jewish, by the way, and I‘ve been an immigrant, so I’m well aware that immigration works when it’s beneficial for the receiving country, not just a wealthy elite. And the wealthy elite in the US are supporters of the unlimited immigration that is causing a lot of problems for ordinary people in the US and other countries.

And, yeah, I’m well aware of how much you Marxists hate and discriminate against Jews.

So the question remains, why do you Marxists hate whites and Jews do much, and why do you want unlimited numbers of non-whites to come to a country that can’t even house everyone, much less give them jobs? You hate whited so much that you want them gone- first from the labor force, then from the Earth altogether.

You support a racist, genocidal party. I hope you’re proud of yourself.

[WhiteSteve]

@Avicenna “You‘re assuming good intentions from the control freak Democrats.”

Dude, WHAT?

One party is in favor of controlling what women do with their pregnancies…which one?

One party is in favor of ending no-fault divorce, potentially trapping women in bad marriages…which one?

One party favors “states’ rights”, but often for the purpose of dumbass applications of them, for things that make things unfriendly for LGBTQ people…which one?

When it comes to the right wing, I think loose economic restrictions, but they’re VERY restrictive socially. I tend to think the opposite of Democrats. I’m a registered Independent, they aren’t even my “team.” My entire interest in participation of politics is trying to stop what’s unfortunately going to happen the next four years, and probably beyond, because they’re going to restructure shit so Democrats or even centrists of either party never have a chance again. It’s nuts. It’s way more about stopping the far right MAGA movement than anything else.

I read at both my little cousins’ bat mitzvahs, I have a whole Jewish wing of my family, I love the Jews. Those cousins are who I fear for the most, as young women. They’re scared, man. A couple of college girls, scared as hell to live in the country they were born in. That’s so fucked up that anyone would root for that real-life impact. I’m so glad I don’t have kids of my own that have to see more of this future than me. But those girls are about as close to being like daughters to me as possible.
https://youtu.be/d8NJZAUZ_Sw
Absolutely fucking disgusting.

All your other stuff…. Jesus, man. Please turn to the jury and show us on the doll where Marxism touched you🙄

[SweetDripp]

What do you mean by direct universal suffrage?

[SweetDripp]

If you mean elimination of the Electoral college, no. The Electoral College is the only reason anyone from the 30 smallest states has any influence on how the nation as a whole is governed.

[abc3643]

Yes and no.

I am OK with the Electoral College because it served a very important purpose in the early republic.

However, it should be corrected a bit, but that won't happen because of the cost involved.

In short, the House of Representatives needs to be much larger instead of being capped at 435. If the number of members of the House increases, then the Electoral College vote becomes more in-line with the popular vote.

So, in short, the corrective action would be to update the Reapportionment Act of 1929.

[Anonymous]

No, we are a federation of 50 states not 333+ million people.

This allows us to vote with our feet among domestic policies including how to conduct an election. (Thank you electoral cottage).

That is why in some states you can do instant run offs, others do ranked choice, etc... Some verify citizenship and other qualifications others effectively let anyone there vote. Their turnout difference does not effect other states.

Its a great system, and no it has nothing to do with overvaluing any state over any other, it just isolates the states from each-other.

[NimbleOcelot]

It's a great idea, but the system itself is terrible and corrupted.

[Opinion Owner]

@NimbleOcelot The federal goverment is corrupt after 200 years of power mad federal politicians beating on and abusing the flaws in the design federal constitution to expand their own power.

It use to work better, that doesn't mean it ever worked perfectly, technically speaking a federal system requires the Senate fully represent state Governments not people.
Even before the 17th amendment it generally failed at that task due to the long not recall-able 6 year term. A design flaw introductory intentionally by people like Halmtion, under the guise of it protecting them as a kind of aristocracy. But aristocracy simply means unaccountably and corruption in practice. It also didn't help that they didn't enforce the State legislator electing them.

Senators should have been treated as ambassadors with instant recall ability, fixing it would probably require adding that capability to the state legislator, and letting governors appoint them on pro-tempo basis when the legislator can't agree.

[KostasKouvalis]

I had to look up what that is and I'm still confused. I think this video will sum it up for you though...

https://www.youtube.com/embed/sYzBccDtkcA

The vast majority of Americans agree with the guy, but I actually agree with the girl. The fact that states can have their own laws and economic policy, makes me question the point of even having a federal government. I once argued that the candidate that wins the most states should become president. Someone argued that wouldn't be fair because of different state population and it wouldn't be an accurate representation of what the people want. Well neither is the electoral college. I don't understand how people can actually think the electoral college is a good and fair system.

[monorprise]

The federal goverment exist to protect the states, i would have thought that fact would be quite clear given how the 13 states needed to work together to win the American revolution. @KostasKouvalis

Just because we have a federal goverment however does not mean we want to be ourselfs governed by a single ruler from a 1000 miles away trying to placke very different interest of very different people even futher away in very different environments.

This is why the best goverment is local goverment became local goverment is not only accountable to the people who can see with their own eyes (not thou media filter) what it does but is bound to the reality of the local circumstances over which it governs.

The only reason we don't have only local goverment is because local goverment is too weak to defend itself. It cannot secure it's people's right to rule themselfs rather than be ruled by a larger more powerful state elsewhere. Thats why the 13 colonies had to work together.

So to address that reality we created a Federal goverment to protect the states from said states and eachother.

The will of the people is a state goverment concept because people only really exist locally, beyond that they are a mere mob governed by whom ever manipulates their information. This fact has always been true even when that selective information control is soo dominate as it was in the 20th century as to keep us from recognizing it.

[RavVid]

It seems to me any federal system of gov't is going to have the dynamic that populous areas could dominate more sparsely populated areas and do so adversely.

We might be seeing that in the UK. Devolution is not the same but somewhat akin.

[Julie4]

I don't understand how a more populous state would dominate...

Unless we assume that everyone who votes in that state will vote for the same candidate.

[RavVid]

People presumably vote in their own interests but part of their interests are the interests of their region. It is good for me if my region is prosperous and bad for me if it is not.

A farming region would be best off getting high food prices but cheap manufactures prices so they vote 75% Country Party. A manufacturing city would be best off with cheap food prices and high manufactures prices (to give high wages) so they vote say 75% City Party.

As the city is more populous, one vote one value will result in polices for low food prices and high manufactures prices.

Simplistic example of the tyranny of the majority. Not only can't you fool all of the people all of the time but you also can't screw some of the people all of the time either.

[monorprise]

@julie4
Geography is not equal at all in the real world particularly in a continental spanning federation as large as these united States.

In every area they are different geographically and environmentally they have correspondingly different economic, cultural, and political issues that must be addressed.

Geography/climate ultimately = economy = culture = people.

A natural state therefore must be build around areas that have relatively similar geography, metropolitan France for example is probably as big as you can get for the laws that your unitary state to be relatively equally intolerable/desirable across your largely homogeneous geography.

Try to apply the same laws in Texas, or Alaska and those states are going to have problems and become resentful.

[WindAtMyBack]

Absolutely not. People should not be voting for president - like not at all. Completely take the people out of the picture and send it back to the states as was originally intended. Allowing people to vote is why we have such a shit-show that's just getting worse.

[blueonblack22]

In some states like Maine and Nebraska the electoral vote can be “divided up” on winning percentages.

I actually like that idea because many people think there vote won’t count if they are in a deep blue or deep red state hence they don’t vote.

[ohsheeT]

Well you said the right word we're all going to suffer it doesn't matter who wins they're not in control anyway they're puppets that we the American people the little people the ones who pay into this country who will get nothing out of it will all suffer universallyre-state//background_color_rgba (0, 0, 0, 0), font_color_rgb (77, 77, 77), justifyLeft

[Avicenna]

No, you don’t want the sole focus of a national election to be the larger states and you don’t want national recounts if someone challenges an election result.

The notion that the big states are somehow disadvantaged by the Electoral College is nonsense- they get more electoral votes from illegals being counted in their populations and in 2030, the Census Bureau overcounted the populations of California, New York and Illinois. Take a wild guess why….

[Avicenna]

* In 2020.

And the „rotten boroughs“ issue is even bigger when you take into account that legal immigrants also can’t (legally) vote, yet they are a significant part of the larger states‘ population.

[loveslongnails]

Charlie Kirk is a double-speaking toadie. He tries to convince college students that "the USA is not a Democracy", blah, blah, blah. Yeah Charlie, we all know the whole Representative Republic thing, but it's still considered "democratic". The "vast majority" hardly agrees him, ever. LOL

[Joshydavid25]

No, the electoral college allows every state to be represented so that the vote won't just go to the places with the biggest populations.. Which are cities because many people in cities suck at good judgment..

[Julie4]

How exactly would direct universal suffrage favor the big states?

[Joshydavid25]

I guess that depends on how you define it really.. I'm guessing you mean lean more towards the popular vote or the actual number of votes for each candidate counting.. To which Big cities have the most population and most big cities are very liberal.. That means that more likely it would favor the Left leaning side.

[monorprise]

12 largest cities would have the majority of the population so a politician would spent a lot less money just running up their vote counts with favorable policies at the expense of the vastly different remaining country.

Then you end up in a situation like California, Illinois, or new York with the vast majority of the state staved of any development and declining under the weight of the incompatible urban centrist laws a of thier cities.

Cities who's ignorance of the area leads even their efforts to build them up via state investment to fail.

Im sorry but you can't make laws that can't be equally enforced in the in the countryside for want of people to enforce them as cities reguarly do on everything from regulations to gun laws. While in their city it might make perfect sense because the regulator and police are right there.

In the country your waiting weeks if not months to get approval if ever.

[AviatorTom]

Not feasible. Ancient Athens couldn't make it work with only a few hundred people eligible to vote. How do you plan to do that with over 300 million voters?

[Julie4]

Brazil, and many other countries, are doing well lol

[AviatorTom]

@julie4 Brazil is a Federal presidential republic with two houses in its legislature, an almost exact copy of the United States.

[Julie4]

How is the president elected?

[AviatorTom]

@julie4 I looked it up. The President in Brazil is elected by popular vote. The key difference between the US and Brazil is that Brazil, although it has states, almost all power is with the federal government, so popular vote deciding the President makes sense. In the US, per the Constitution, in particular the 10th Amendment, the federal government has limited powers, only what the Constitution says, with all other powers belonging to the states. That's why the Electoral College, which ensures that each state has a say in who is elected President, makes sense.

It's unfortunate that US schools today don't teach that. Schools, run by liberals, teach that the federal government has all the power, rather than the legal fact that most power lies with the states and local governments.

[BCRanger10]

No. I like knowing that political candidates have to actually work to earn people's support and votes, and that Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles don't have a monopoly on American politics.

[strateguy632]

No because one state with more people, shouldn't must not decide for the other 50, 49, states.

[NathanDavis]

would you mind to define your idea of "direct universal suffrage"?

[Julie4]

Direct universal suffrage is a voting system in which all adult citizens of a country can vote directly to choose their representatives or make important decisions. "Universal" means that all citizens (irrespective of gender, income, origin, etc.) can vote, and "direct" means that voters vote themselves, without intermediaries, to elect a person or approve a decision.

[NathanDavis]

the electoral college just sucks monkey ass... period

the claim is that every state has to have representation and it will count as much as the votes from larger states, which is bullshit

over 40+ states votes are neutralized and there's only 7 swing states which decide AGAINST the decision of the majority of the country

[Julie4]

I've always thought that the argument that the electoral college allows a small state to compete with a large state was dubious lol

[NathanDavis]

at the most... around 40 million people's votes will make any difference in this election

so that means, that the votes of 120 million people or so... are neutralized immediately, because they have no relevancy at all in the outcome

so, most people think that small and bigger states voting counts the same, but it does not, lol

at the end of the election day... only seven, swing states have the power to decide which half of the USA is going to be SALTY AF for the next four years, lol

[slatyb]

I certainly would. The Electoral College system gives disproportionate power to residents in tiny states.

[TadCurious]

If you mean amending our Constitution to do away with the Electoral College then no, I absolutely would oppose that.

[DrPepper12]

YES!!! Even better if we had a parliamentary system but NOOOO we have a 240 year old geriatric suicide pact.

[Maybe_Maybe_not]

geriatric suicide pact 😅

[RyanEC]

You mean the national vote determining the election instead of the states?

[Julie4]

Yeah

[RyanEC]

Oh okay.

I think that might work.

People say the reason we need the electoral college is so the candidates will need to campaign in the smaller states and not just the larger ones like New York, California and Texas but instead they go to around 5 states or so that are competitive.

Today on the last day before the Trump and Harris are both going to visit Pittsburgh a city of a mere 300’000 because the state of Pennsylvania is so important to both of them.

Some say it would help democrats but if it was decided by a national vote then republicans in California and New York might vote instead of staying home.

[Julie4]

That's exactly the argument I hear every time to justify the current American system, and it's probably a valid one given that the US is a federal system.

But I still have my doubts, because even in the big states there must be a significant proportion of Republicans too , And I feel it gives a more accurate picture of who people vote for.

But again, that's just my opinion, and I'm not criticizing the current American system.

[RyanEC]

Yes I understand.

And it takes so long here.

We might not know who wins until later in the week.

Of course I pay attention to the French presidential elections over the years and I remember the results always came out all at once.
Here we have to wait for every state and some take longer then others.

[FunkyMonkee]

We've already been suffering for the past for years! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!
KICK OUT THE CUNT!!

[Grond21]

Do you mean pure democracy? Heck no. That has never worked out well for the little guy

[Anonymous]

No. The USA is a FEDERAL system. So the STATES choose. The people vote in their respective states. Its not meant to be one giant voting pool.

[Ladsin2]

Have what? Do you mean direct democracy? No. Pure democracy leads to tyranny of the masses.

[RedInnocent69]

So Republicans can lose their shit even more when they lose? Sure! Sadly, won’t happen.

[noohair]

If you want to change the constitution, do the necessary steps.

[phraseology]

Nope. Go fuck yourself Nazi.

[Julie4]

You use words you don't understand. Go and study history, and educate yourself more generally.

Peace be upon you.

[phraseology]

Nice projection Nazi. Enjoy the fall loser.

[Curmudgeon]

NO! it's a Federal Republic.

[Miristheiss]

What is direct, universal suffrage?

[seeyounexttuesday]

Nope. Electoral college is superior.

[Julie4]

I don't see how it's superior, I really don't.

[seeyounexttuesday]

Sorry you feel that way.

[exitseven]

We all are suffering during this election.

[Dargil]

As opposed to what?

[Jackblue]

Depends on who wins