You’re assuming the appetite for it wouldn’t change if the electoral system changed. Let’s imagine however that the system is changed and in time the popular feeling/view in one or a number of states is to leave the union…what approach would you take? How would you tackle this ‘treason’?
And the vast majority of voters didn’t vote for them.
Yeah but hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way.It would be the solution to under 50% of the vote going to one party
The vast majority of kids in a classroom may not vote for a president, the kid with the most votes still get the prize. If you must have majority, do ranked choice voting until you arrive at a majority, the principle remains, one person one vote, candidate with the most votes wins.
Your choice of the IRA as an example is fitting, because it absolutely proves my point. Whether we are talking the EC or popular vote, states like Mississippi and Alabama will not matter to Dems chance of gaining the White House. Yet, the benefits of the IRA (negotiated drug prices, capping insulin costs, credits for solar power, etc.) will benefit them like everyone else. That is what good legislation does, it benefits everyone, not just those that support you. Oh, and all those GOP members off Congress in Alabama and Mississippi? They all voted against the IRA. So tell me, does it really matter how we elect our government or is it more important who we elect?
So if the majority of people in a particular state, or states, wished to leave the union do you believe that this democratic will should be ignored and/or quelled?
Which will often equate to a president who isn’t representative of the majority of voters.
Now imagine a 3 party system.
If a majority of Liverpool or Manchester wish to leave England, or a majority of Victoria or New South Wales wish to leave Australia, should they be accommodated?
So no worse than what we have now. And nobody took much issue with Lincoln not winning a majority in 1860, or Bill Clinton not winning a majority in 1992, they still got the most votes. And btw, at least since 1910 or so, no actual president can claim to have the support of the ‘vast majority of people’, because around 40% of the eligible voting population don’t participate.
Now imagine a 3 party system.
English cities aren’t the equivalent of American States. The apt comparison here is with the constituent parts of the current UK, i.e. England, Scotland, Wales and NI.
Okayyyy.
Conditions change and laws change. Indeed the presidents you cite each presided over much smaller countries than current incumbents.
The consequence being imprisonment or death in this context?
It could indeed be worse because at least the margin of difference is small now.
I didn’t refer to the vast majority of people, I referred to the vast majority of voters, by which I mean those who voted.
Right, so your view is that how we elect our president should be by a system that currently, and historically, is by design, weighted towards white christians because they should have preference in choosing who is president since they might throw a tantrum if they don’t get their way.
Scotland, Wales and NI arent apt either, merely by the fact that they get to have the possibility of that referendum. US states, for all intents and purposes, are much closer to provinces, despite what they may say. They dont have sovereignty, not in the sense of an actual nation state.
Thanks for your valuable input.
Some change, some don't. The land mass that Lincoln presided over is the same as mainland USA today. And the principle was made clear, one nation, under God, indivisible. Nation, not states.
The margin of difference now is millions of votes.
And the vast majority of voters would be able to prevent that outcome by voting for one candidate, if the winner is so unpalatable for them. And the only difference between 'voters' and 'eligible to vote' in your argument is whether they participate, so by not participating they effectively made the same choice as the 'vast majority of voters'.
1) yes
That's genius actually. Are there any rules against this?Americans love their conspiracy theory.
Oh right, that makes sense.
WA and North Queensland often have some noise about seceding from the Commonwealth or becomeing a state (NQ) and the answer is always "No feck off". Partly because they are stupid ideas and WA could never survive alone and NQ doesn't have anywhere near the population or industry to be a state.
His performance would have been vastly improved if he had frozen before he rambled on about immigrants eating pets, Harris aborting babies after they are born, and various other nonsenses that he vomited up.
The funny thing is, that has a kernel of truth in it. Harris's 2019 primary platform included a provision for providing transition care for detained immigrants, which is a humane position, but would be pretty unpopular with the public at large. His campaign managed to dig it up, prepped him to use it, then he botched it on stage by essentially saying 'she wants to make illegal aliens trans' instead of 'she wants to waste tax payer money on providing transgender surgery to illegal aliens'.
This is a subtle callback to when Dubya supposedly had an ear piece during a debate.Americans love their conspiracy theory.
Is it really that way?
Is the electoral college really the big problem or is it the simple majority gets all the electors?
the problem is representation differs arbitrarily between states.
I was referring to presidential election only.
But that's the point, proportional representation with the current number of seats doesnt solve the issue because 1) the number of electors correlating with Senate seats skew Republicans and 2) house seats in red states represent less people on average, so they still get more voting power, due to the 1929 Permanent Reapportionment Act. So without uncapping the House to get more seats/electors to offset the inherent skew in the Senate, you still end up at possible EC/popular vote split.
What about Malta and Germany both getting one vote in the council of European Union? Or that tiny counties in European Union have vetoes that can block everything?
You think that's bad? Look at the Rugby Premier League... The team that comes top has to go in to a 4 way play off with the other top 4 teams and whoever wins that is the actual League winner. How the feck does that make sense?
Fixed for you
