Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Proper_Distribution1 t1_j2iitl7 wrote

The way our elected officials are elected was designed to prevent one group from taking over, even if 51 percent of the country agree with them.

The House of Representatives is elected by popular vote of the individual constituencies.

The Senate was originally chosen by the governor of the state whenever there was an opening.

And the President is chosen by a group of electors chosen by the people of each state.

The senate was already changed to match the house of reps voting method. Let’s not change the presidency to match the house and senate. The whole system was designed so that it gave everyone equal representation in our government.

−7

JesusOfBeer t1_j2itdvg wrote

That’s just not a truly accurate representation of how the plan works. The founding fathers intended to deny true democracy so that it was easier for the aristocracy to hold power.

In order to realize the potential of the opening statement of the constitution, “We the People of the United States …”, we need to evolve… we need to actualize what “We the People” means and that warrants a true democratic process. The current process is rigged via gerrymandering on the local/state level so why not remove the electoral college since it was designed to favor the wealthy

6

Proper_Distribution1 t1_j2iuqdv wrote

Should the wealthy not have a say in politics?

We’re not supposed to have true democracy. The system was designed as a republic for a reason.

−10

[deleted] t1_j2iyfks wrote

The wealthy do. They get one vote on election day like everyone else. Do they need more say?

Also, what reason are you referring to?

10

Proper_Distribution1 t1_j2j0g71 wrote

Pure democracies end up becoming mob rule. In a true democracy, every person would have a vote on every decision of government. This may work on a small town, or even county level, but you start getting into entire states or even entire countries, it’s not plausible.

According to the Hoover Institution, -

“A “pure democracy,” explained Madison, “can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction.” But a republic, he continued, “by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, . . . promises the cure for which we are seeking.” The Framers believed that cooler heads would prevail if the people’s impulses were funneled through elected representatives in government. And, in fact, representation was only one part of the Founders’ remedy for the mischiefs of faction. They also separated the powers of government among three branches, established a Senate in which states, not people, have equal voice, established the electoral college rather than direct popular vote for the selection of the president, divided powers between the national and state governments, and allowed that individual rights would prevail over national (and later state) power.”

The whole separation of power was not just the 3 branches of government, but also the types of representation.

−8

[deleted] t1_j2jc1el wrote

Not sure what your point is here my friend. This post is purely about presidential elections, not about everybody voting on every decision of the government. Your argument is indeed a straw man and I hope you can see that.

Also, nobody is going against states rights here. States can allocate electoral college votes however they wish to. Historically, it has been typical to allocate votes by whichever presidential candidate leads in the state. However, if states wish to allocate electoral votes based on the leading candidate in the national popular vote, that is entirely their choice. Nothing in our Constitution prohibits them from doing so. This is a view I agree with because it means my vote will matter even if my state is consistently a "red" or "blue" state.

8

JesusOfBeer t1_j2j6go8 wrote

If I were to have it my way… benevolent dictator because our current system was never designed to represent the people, it is designed to represent the wealthy and business interests. However, no one is arguing for a pure democracy, you’re using standard lame propaganda to maintain the status quo which yields more power to the wealthy and corporations. Allowing for a more democratic approach wouldn’t remove the three branches… you’re grasping at straws.

4

Ajaws24142822 t1_j2kalyc wrote

Mfs out here actually advocating for dictatorship 💀

0

JesusOfBeer t1_j2kj0ph wrote

You’re really out here pretending you wouldn’t want a benevolent dictator of a country with the same rights and abilities as US citizens but with funded healthcare, education, housing and social services?

Oh and you don’t have to vote

0

Ajaws24142822 t1_j2lfmph wrote

Yeah no fuck that, I’m absolutely telling you that.

I don’t care how many benefits they bring, benevolent or not, if I get no say in who is governing me than they shouldn’t have the right to govern. The governed should choose their governors

If we want universal healthcare, education, etc. we vote for someone who will implement it. They do it because the will of the people matters first. If the people don’t vote for it, if it doesn’t pass, we don’t get it.

Benevolent dictators isn’t worth the risk, absolute power corrupts absolutely. The chances of finding someone infallible to become a dictator is so slim and so rare, if 1/10 dictators was benevolent, but I had a 9/10 chance of them being brutal and oppressive, that chance isn’t worth it.

In a perfect, utopia society where humans aren’t flawed, sure

1

JesusOfBeer t1_j2mtwyq wrote

So many contradictory statements but in the end you agreed. A benevolent dictator makes sense

0

Ajaws24142822 t1_j2n1x8d wrote

A benevolent dictator basically doesn’t exist in our reality

In a perfect utopia world sure it would be great

I don’t understand how anything I said went over your head

Dictators bad, no matter what, nobody stays benevolent for long unless the stars align perfectly to create the absolute most infallible human to exist.

If people were perfect, a dictator would be fine, because he wouldn’t be corrupted by power.

But in the real world, that isn’t really possible, there is quite literally only one historical example ever in the history of humanity of a benevolent dictator and it was two and a half millennia ago, and even he isn’t a perfect example of a leader, and all modern examples are either elected or were actual pieces of shit like Ataturk or Tito. Even better guys like France-Albert Rene actively suppressed any criticism of his regime and didn’t begin liberalizing until the 1990s.

Any presidency with unchecked power is dangerous, and unless you find a literal perfect human, it’s far to dangerous to give that power to anyone. Because they will use it to violate the rights of the people. Democracy exists to protect the basic rights of the people.

1

JesusOfBeer t1_j2n694p wrote

That’s a lot of words to say you agree.

0

Ajaws24142822 t1_j2nb9mp wrote

I mean if you’re willing to concede that it literally isn’t possible than we agree, because that’s my position

1

JesusOfBeer t1_j2ndcm2 wrote

If you’re willing to agree our current system allows for the hoarding of power into the hands of the wealthy and is a plutocracy which makes voting nothing more than an act of accepting your servitude.

0

Ajaws24142822 t1_j2nwpqd wrote

I won’t, because we live in a liberal democracy where voting matters and believing that it doesn’t is just cope

1

JesusOfBeer t1_j2nzqox wrote

Ahhh damn, we’re so close!

Voting in our current system has little positive impact for the greater good. We don’t have enough politicians fighting for more freedom, we have a political system that has been taken over by corporations, lobbyists, and nutjob religious fanatics… Freedom in America has been slowly dying since neoliberalism was kicked into high gear by Reagan. Your vote is nothing more than giving a corporate puppet power over you.

Edit: sure we stopped overt fascism from winning the executive branch in 2020 but fascism is still churning away!

0

Ajaws24142822 t1_j2oirtv wrote

Voting in our current system has a lot of effect on people especially if you vote in state and local elections. Voting for your governor and representatives is gonna have way more effect on your life than people realize, and the system literally still works

Also Neoliberalism is absolutely fucking based. capitalism, immigration, globalism, liberalism, secularism, anti-populism anti-fascism and anti-fascism, horrendously based. Social democracy is pretty rad too but they’re pretty similar anyway. We dominate the planet in soft power and culture and no force has been better for humanity than capitalism, globalism and liberalism in all of human history.

1

JesusOfBeer t1_j2j04mp wrote

They definitely should not operate the entire system which currently portrays a plutocracy

7