That's fair. Even with "mandatory" voting enforced through fines, Australia's voter participation rate is only around 91-92% as of 2016.My only argument against a true democracy is that there is no way to make sure that everyone votes. I'm just a teenager and have to unlearn some things I was taught.
But the long arc of American history is the story of embracing increased democracy. Reducing outsized power of certain groups over others is surely the next step?As a person with a retired extension agent for a mother, I'm a bit biased with it comes to agriculture, but I do agree with JayDee. We aren't a democracy. We never have been; true democracies don't work. Voting purely as majority unfairly affects states with low population. The interests of one large state may not be the interests of a smaller state (according to population), but the smaller state's interests should still be weighed fairly.
This whole line of thinking is absurd. One person, one vote. Proportional representation is the only logical method of representative democracy.
BUT, we should be destroying them with vigorous debate and the virtue of our ideas, not a structure systemically designed to silence them.
As far as the main point (Electoral College and faithless voters) goes, the purpose of the Electoral College was to A) cut down on the logistical complexity of a nation-wide election and B) to allow 'enlightened and informed' individuals decide who would be the primary ruler of the country, to act as a guard against (in the founding fathers' eyes, quite unlikely case of) destructive demagogues who would sweep a popular vote. The former no longer matters, we've overcome that particular problem. The latter they have demonstrably failed in the case of our current President. To follow this logic, the Electoral College should be abolished, as it is a failed institution.
Since you didn't respond to any of my points that I spent a decent amount of time putting together previously, and instead just insist on giving increasingly erratic and aggressive responses, I'm going to have to assume you are trolling.Ok, so apparently I'm actually going to have to show you pictures from the internet and use research to actually explain this to you guys.
Below is a blank map of America
Notice the black lines? These are to indicate the separation of "states." States are defined as "a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government." Now, the word "state" might sound familiar to you, that is because you are in the United States of America. Notice how the word "people" does not appear anywhere in that title?
If you'd like the full title, then we are the Federal Presidential Constitutional REPUBLIC of the United States of America. Once again, I emphasize the lack of "Democracy" or "People" anywhere within that title. Now that's all well and good, but apparently it doesn't explain my point.
You see, each individual state has individual needs that need to be met. However, some of these states are bigger than others so they tend to have larger populations that have more influence. Does that mean the other states don't matter? Well apparently they don't, but hey, that's your opinion, not mine.
So how do we prevent these states, which we actually do need, from getting passed over every four years? Well the solution is exactly what you see today, an Electoral College that gives disproportional representation to accommodate for an already disproportional representation.
Now, you might be saying "bUt thE PeOPLe," and yes, the people are important, which is why they're allowed to vote for STATE representatives. You know, the Governor that dictates all the policies for your state? Yeah, YOU get to vote for them. And guess what?? There's NO Electoral College!!! The thing is, what California needs and what Missouri needs are not the same thing, but according to you, California is more important so let's just sweep Missouri under the rug and forget they exist.
Meanwhile, there are 49 other states that have needs just as important as yours and, unfortunately, the Federal government isn't going to give California all the money just because it's larger. Even more unfortunate is that you actually need those 49 other states. I mean, like you said, the relationship is symbiotic.
Hmm, gonna be honest, looks more like a parasite to me. But hey, those guys in the middle just don't know any better right? They're all a bunch of Redneck morons who can't even get their GED, why should they have more say than the rest of us?
That's a very good question. It's because all those blue dots you see cannot possibly represent the whole country or in some cases even their whole state. That's not representation. That's all the power being focused into one central location...pretty sure there's a word for that somewhere. I'll tell you what, the word definitely isn't "Republic."
You're saying the Electoral College ruined the election. No, it didn't, it did exactly what it was designed to do. It prevented large cities like NYC, LA, and Chicago from deciding the election. It prevented all those tiny blue dots-and a few big ones-on the coast from deciding the fate of that sea of red dots in the middle.
And Prim, I bring up rhetoric from 200 years ago to emphasize my point that Democracy doesn't work. But I suppose the 50th time is the charm? (50 is an arbitrary number, I'm not going to look up how many times Democracy has existed).
I know I sound a bit abrasive in here, but I'm tired of hearing the same argument from people who would gladly argue in favor of the Electoral College if it ever benefited them. People are not being benign altruists who care about the People, they just want to win.
Now you're arguing the actors, rather than the idea, though. The idea is fine, it just happens to be those who hold those particular locations are being greedy with it. Replace the people, and it is fine.We should also be fixing the system that entrenches their outsized power and keeps that minority with a firm grasp on the reins and continuing to pillage the economic base of the nation. Things like gerrymandering, Senate malapportionment, and the Electoral College.
Leaving those institutions unquestioned is giving our implicit approval of their manipulative effects on our political process.
This is the core of your argument, and unfortunately the core of your argument is based on a selective view of known history. The purpose of the Electoral College is twofold: to represent each state (and thus 'protecting' the minority), and to be a collection of learned individuals (protect against an electorate that has been 'duped').No, it didn't, it did exactly what it was designed to do. It prevented large cities like NYC, LA, and Chicago from deciding the election.
The state lines are totally arbitrary and in many cases were formed as the result of slavery compromises or in other cases for no good reason at all. The amount of reverence you are giving to lines in the sand vs. the actual people of the country is confusing to me.@HEM My bad.
Everything you point out simply proves my point that every state has different needs. We have state and local representatives because they are the ones that can best handle individual situations. They are directly elected because the people of the state/city are the ones who can (usually) best decide what's best for them.
What a person can't decide with any measurable ability is what is best for the country. Because like I said, what California needs and what Missouri needs are vastly different. I don't think California should get special treatment just because it's larger. The Electoral College forces people to focus more on the country as a whole instead of just NYC, LA, and Chicago.
I don't know why you only see the only explanation is that a bunch of Hillary voters hate the white, rural American man and want to fuck him over?
Yeah, but that's kinda my point! You move like one county out of Michigan and into Ohio or vice versa, she wins. The state lines don't represent anything.I don't know why you only see the only explanation is that a bunch of Hillary voters hate the white, rural American man and want to fuck him over?
Well to be fair the reason Hillary lost is exactly because she didn't go after the white, rural American man.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-rural-voters-trump-231266
If some of you folks are honestly for state-centric, de-federalized government, I respect your beliefs and urge for you to go and fight for them
Now you're arguing the actors, rather than the idea, though. The idea is fine, it just happens to be those who hold those particular locations are being greedy with it. Replace the people, and it is fine.
Except gerrymandering. That particular idea rewards those in power, rather than checks them. It's just bad, and the only reason anyone argues against it is the same reason a modest labor-based family votes in favor of large corporations or to lower taxes on the rich: they're all want that power to be around the day they might be 'in charge'.
It's been a very, very, very long time. I think it'd be hard to argue that even Reagan executed on those beliefs.If some of you folks are honestly for state-centric, de-federalized government, I respect your beliefs and urge for you to go and fight for them
This is literally what the Republican Party stands for, smaller Government, Tenth Amendment to the max. Well you know it used to.
It's been a very, very, very long time. I think it'd be hard to argue that even Reagan executed on those beliefs.If some of you folks are honestly for state-centric, de-federalized government, I respect your beliefs and urge for you to go and fight for them
This is literally what the Republican Party stands for, smaller Government, Tenth Amendment to the max. Well you know it used to.