Didn't say it's perfect but believe it would be a big step in the right direction.
I personally believe it's very undemocratic, if in close race, like 51:49, the minority doesn't get a single elector.
2024 U.S. Elections | Trump v Harris
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
I personally believe it's very undemocratic, if in close race, like 51:49, the minority doesn't get a single elector.
You are right, but I doesn't make the American system any better.
A lot of people criticize aha aren't happy with status quo. I also believe that the unity vote, all 26 members need to agree, is outdated and often delays important decisions unnecessarily. It should be changed to a majority vote.
Yep could do with some in this country.
For something that affects so many diverse interests I think a majority vote would be silly (52-48 and all that). Perhaps an 80% threshold or something like that would be more sensible.
That's why I didn't write simple majority.. Like 2/3 or in some important decisions 80% as you suggest is fine.
It's so frustrating that autocrats like Orban can simply block any meaningfully progress in the EU with their veto.
Fair enough.
And therefore my vote should count nationally not by state. It's rather simple to contemplate why the EC is a dumb system in modern times. My vote is cast to elect a national leader to hopefully enact policies that positively affect all persons. If my vote is practically rendered meaningless in a state the opposition party has a stronghold, regardless of which, it's a pointless system. I'm voting for a national representative not a state representative. Additionally, the argument against "populous cities" as mentioned elsewhere in this thread is irrelevant and dishonest - people flock to locations that offer more pay, more culture, more housing, more opportunities, etc. Furthermore, people vote not land.
The only state that probably could claim sovereignty would be Texas as a former recognized republic governing itself. But even Texas isn't stupid enough to withdraw from the union.
Probably because butthurt Republican snowflakes get upset every four years and take to social media talking about secession. Even when they win the presidency but far more so when they lose.
So, you're saying land should hold more power over people? Should we let corporations vote too?
Who’d have thought there were Citizens United fans out there.
These last few pages have been bonkers, I never knew how much more popular the EC was outside the US.
Corporations are people my friend.
That’s nothing, his former vp Pence was almost hanged.
Well, at least in France the president is the person who receives the most votes in the second round.
Our electoral college system worked well for about 200 years. But it’s clearly not working as well since the beginning of the century. The likelihood of split between the EC an popular vote has increased.
Our system has problems: the residents of the capital city have no representation in Congress like other people, even though DC is bigger than Wyoming, for example. American citizens in U.S. territories don’t vote in presidential elections (they vote in the primaries). The French outside of France vote.
We have built a good democracy, but it has flaws. The 2000 election exposed some. Trump exposed more.
EC cant be said unfair when the Dems and Reps have shared mostly even I'd say. I'm not counting but it isnt like Dems hardly wins.
If abolishing EC means Dems winning the majority (need to check history of popular votes) then isnt it the same as gerrymandering in principal?
If abolishing EC means Dems winning the majority (need to check history of popular votes) then isnt it the same as gerrymandering in principal?
I'm sorry what? Making it so all people have the same degree of influence is the same as building arbitrary lines to specifically alter the extent to which a single vote matters?
Whatever the shady reasons for having small states get some representation, I can still see logic to it if it's a 'union of states' to be governed with each states' interests factored in. And given that an entire branch of congress (the Senate) gives equal weight to each state, that feels like it's solved it to me.
The clear, obvious, there are definitely dodgy reasons they haven't done these things are:
1. Give the other 'states' senate seats (PR, DC etc)
2. Change to ranked choice voting, so that giant states that are super close (Texas, California) would still contribute votes towards candidates of both parties, not just winner take all
3. End the filibuster
4. End PACs and absurd lobbying practices (harder)
5. Repeal Citizens United
While democracies aren't perfect, so much of the current US system is designed to ensure that we get politicians that don't actually do what is popular. Encumbents win the vast majority of elections (down ballot) and they win because they spend the most, and can spend the most because special interests pay for it. That's how we can have issues with 80%+ support in a 'democracy' (abortion, assualt-weapon bans etc) that still don't actually get passed by the politicians.
The clear, obvious, there are definitely dodgy reasons they haven't done these things are:
1. Give the other 'states' senate seats (PR, DC etc)
2. Change to ranked choice voting, so that giant states that are super close (Texas, California) would still contribute votes towards candidates of both parties, not just winner take all
3. End the filibuster
4. End PACs and absurd lobbying practices (harder)
5. Repeal Citizens United
While democracies aren't perfect, so much of the current US system is designed to ensure that we get politicians that don't actually do what is popular. Encumbents win the vast majority of elections (down ballot) and they win because they spend the most, and can spend the most because special interests pay for it. That's how we can have issues with 80%+ support in a 'democracy' (abortion, assualt-weapon bans etc) that still don't actually get passed by the politicians.
In the last 6 elections one party has won the popular vote 5 times, and has won the presidency 3 times. The other has won the popular vote 1 time, and the presidency 3 times. That's EC bias for one party in detriment of the other in a 5x factor. That's considerably unfair, plus there's a significant possibility that this happens again this year.
All votes having the same value is a core principle of representative democracy. Elections won by popular vote goes in that direction. Gerrymandering does the exact opposite of that.
The council of Europe is completely undemocratic. Might as well throw in the Russian Duma if you're just going to create straw men. At least in Russia the majority always retain power. Also, yeah it's true that having more than two political parties throws up disparities - the idea that therefore a binary system with inherently fewer choices is somehow more representative is only a few steps short of madness.
I thought the problem was all these illegals are on he streets eating our pets and not actually in jail
One of the big diferences between the US system and European systems is that the cabinet positions in the US are not elected officials like they usually are in Europe
Edit: Worded that badly, in Europe they are general elected people who are then selected to fill a cabinet position
Politics in american really just a tv show. It's amazing.
I think France has the best voting system I know because of the second round votes.The basic principle that everybody has one vote and the party/candidate which receives most of the votes is elected is, in my opinion, an imperfect way to finish a consensus. If you had 10 votes for example and could choose if you vote for or against a party/candidate, you could for instance give all your 10 votes against the right wing extremists because preventing them from taking over might be what matters more to you than which of the parties you deem on an acceptable political spectrum gets elected.
France obviously doesn't do that but the fact that there will always be a second round in which you can vote for the smaller evil. And it is also makes it much easier for smaller parties to grow. In Germany, you think twice before voting for a party that might finish below 5% because your vote would essentially be thrown away if they fail to get a result.
Hopefully this clown doesn't wind up in charge of immigration policy again.
He is such a monster. He is the one that seriously suggested shooting/bombing migrant caravans while they were in Mexico.
Russia is kind enough to provide them.Americans love their conspiracy theory.
You mean that an outsider who haven't been elected into congress or senate can become a cabinet member?
Actually, this is also possible in Germany even it happens very seldom.
For me the biggest difference is that in Germany the parties make the policies, agendas and programs while in the US it seems to me it's the presidential candidates who come up with policies and programs. The party only plays a minor role in the process.
If they are a member of congress they have to resign to become a cabinet member, not 100% sure but I alsa think it appies to any elected position, for example, Kamala Harris had to resign as a sentator when she became VP
How is this logical? It's obviously unfair when a Republican vote in California is worthless and a Democratic vote in Alabama is equally worthless. Even though it is not perfect a simple majority by popular vote is much more fair. All votes should be equal, it should not matter if the vote was cast in New York or Iowa, a vote should be a vote.
And yes, it would mean that the Dems would be pretty much nailed on to win every election (which would be a good thing for both the US and the world FYI...) but that is not nearly the same as Gerrymandering. It is that way because the majority of Americans do not want Republican policies, so if the Republicans want to win the popular vote, then the onus is on them to appeal to enough voters - right?
How is that any different from a Tory voter voting in Manchester or a Labour voter voting in leafy Surrey?
California was a reliable red state in my lifetime and Alabama a blue state for much of it's history as were other southern states
bald wanker.2,868,691 more people voted for Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump in 2016. But because of where the minority of voters lived, Trump gets elected. I can't believe some people think that makes sense.
The Electoral College is a hold over from slave states protecting their political power against the growing population of free states.
That's the system we're arguing about right now.
That's the system we're arguing about right now.
Alabama was last blue in 1976, and like most of the south the flip occurred as a reaction the the realigning of parties.
And for fecks sake, you guys are defending a system enacted solely to advantage slave owners.
Edit: damn it @Carolina Red
Yup, and Biden won the popular vote by about 7 million votes was it? But the election itself was decided by around 40k or so if I remember somewhat correctly.
Yes.
Reading up on US history should really be mandatory.
That's the part im having trouble understanding too. The way the system is still abused today, especially by the Republicans shows not much has changed, if anything at all.
Much is made of voter suppression, and how the parties(mainly GOP) trying to prevent people from voting, but isn't the EC+winner takes-all, the biggest piece of voter suppression there is?
I'll be generous and say barely double digits states matters each election, the rest of the US are mere spectators, there is no incentives for people to go out and vote in most states in the presidential race.
I'll be generous and say barely double digits states matters each election, the rest of the US are mere spectators, there is no incentives for people to go out and vote in most states in the presidential race.
The USA presidential and senate elections are not great examples of democratic representation, but then how the head of state and upper house are determined in the UK is even less democratic. Fact is, most so-called democracies are flawed.
A big part of the problem in the US is how much power the president has, and it only seems to be increasing over time.
A big part of the problem in the US is how much power the president has, and it only seems to be increasing over time.
Especially with a politically weaponized SCOTUS granting the President immunity.
In my view the perception of increasing executive, and recently judicial, branch power is solely down to the dysfunction of congress. Congress has the responsibility to keep the other two branches in check, and yet they don’t. The problem is that the dysfunction is not an accident. The GOP, through luck and scheming, grabbed control of SCOTUS, and it’s much easier to get 6 lackies to do your bidding than convincing and controlling congress.