Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

stiikkle t1_ivtgzr6 wrote

Two things that surprised me (I’m not American)

  1. Parenting seems heavily R biased. I didn’t think parenting would be political

  2. Electoral Reform seems heavily D biased. I thought republicans made most noise about corrupt voting processes etc?

8

DCL_JD t1_ivtmkyq wrote

I can try to clarify some of this for you. Although because I guarantee someone is going to try to dispute what I say I’ll preface this by disclosing I am an American attorney.

  1. Republicans want more control over what their children learn in school. Example: One republican parent named Wendell Perez is suing in Florida after his daughter was taught gender counseling without his knowledge. Basically the legal complaint alleges that the school gave his daughter a new name and instructed the students to treat her as a boy and she ended up trying to commit suicide twice as a result.
  2. Democrats favor electoral reform (such as abolishing the electoral college) while Republicans prefer to leave elections the way they’ve been for the last 245 years or so. I don’t pay too much attention to election whiners but as far as I’m aware, Republicans were making noise about the election processes during covid because some of the procedures were changed to accommodate for the disease and, as I’ve mentioned, Republicans prefer to keep the election process untouched and unchanged.
9

stiikkle t1_ivu9ghd wrote

Thanks for this answer - very interesting!

For me (again, not an American) it seems as if American politicians (and media for the easy clicks) have convinced the public the “others” are enemies out to destroy the country (they either want to destroy families or, well, be Nazis).

Incidentally, my own perspective is that all Americans I’ve met are fairly similar, having been to both very liberal and very conservative areas. Americans just tend to be quite nice and friendly and care about their country. There are regional differences of course - like hunting, but I don’t know any country where folks living in a big city are generally into that kind of activity.

The data does seem to indicate there are differences, but in all honestly, if the difference is how much someone likes Joe Rogan, I’m not sure it’s worth worrying about.

6

Kolocktos t1_ivvc7dz wrote

This is absolutely the case as an American with roots in both Montana (highly Republican) and western Washington (highly Democrat). When people speak face to face, they can easily find common ground, and will usually identify misconceptions they have about each other. These same misconceptions fuel the divide we see in the MSM, and are very profitable to said MSM since outrage fuels engagement and by extension advertising revenue.

4

YeOldeTossaway t1_ivvzgnh wrote

Republicans are trying to greatly reduce the number of voting locations in most states. That's not "keep it the same as it's been".

3

Leguanix t1_ivtlac5 wrote

inthink its easy to strike fear into parents, because they are extra afraid that their kids are safe.

8

Stuntz-X t1_ivtq0m9 wrote

Some might think are their kids safe from republicans at this point.

−1

Londonluton t1_ivtls7u wrote

I mean, the vast majority of the world already has voter ID systems in place so I have no idea why the Dems fight so hard against it. Oh wait, I do know.

5

Talzon70 t1_ivvleye wrote

Electoral reform isn't just about voter ID system, it's about gerrymandering, fixing/abolishing the electoral college, proportional representation, statehood for DC and US territories, disenfranchisement of black voters through the criminal justice system, etc.

Wanting more representative democracy in America skews heavily towards the Democrats.

0

Londonluton t1_ivvoul9 wrote

The electoral college works exactly as it should though. Proportional representation doesn't work when cities can have the same population as whole states. Statehood of DC is a stupid idea and the same with US territories. Just Dem tricks to buy even more dem voters. Ever wonder why the Ukraine border is sacred and must be defended but the southern border is to be left open so 80k Hondurans can run across every month? And guess how they'll vote. Representative democracy only works with small, homogeneous societies.

3

Talzon70 t1_ivvs4xy wrote

>The electoral college works exactly as it should though.

Only if I agree with you on how it should work in the first place, but I very much disagree.

>Proportional representation doesn't work when cities can have the same population as whole states.

Define "doesn't work". I would argue giving more representation to cities with populations larger than whole state is proportional representation working.

>Statehood of DC is a stupid idea and the same with US territories. Just Dem tricks to buy even more dem voters.

So letting US citizens vote is some evil Democrat conspiracy? That's your argument?

Like I said, wanting more representative democracy skews heavily towards the Democrats.

>Ever wonder why the Ukraine border is sacred and must be defended but the southern border is to be left open so 80k Hondurans can run across every month? And guess how they'll vote.

Trying to change the subject with something completely irrelevant? Stay on topic, coward.

>Representative democracy only works with small, homogeneous societies.

Prove it.

−2

Londonluton t1_ivvt8vy wrote

Lol, name calling and asking for proof proof proof, typical. Interacting with your kind isn't worth the effort, you're never going to see reality.

6

DrSquirrelBoy12 t1_ivwfjrn wrote

>I would argue giving more representation to cities with populations larger than whole state is proportional representation working.

Cities should not dictate laws to the countryside and vice versa. This is why we are supposed to have a decentralized system of government.

Your primary law making should happen at a local level. Larger issues go to the states, issues yet larger go to the nation.

Pure democracy is just tyranny of the majority.

People should care more about their local elections than whatever dufus from either rival gang that just wants to extort and scam you while blaming the other gang is in the white house.

3

Talzon70 t1_ivwlkmu wrote

>Cities should not dictate laws to the countryside and vice versa.

Again with the should. I simply disagree. Laws are about people, not geography.

>This is why we are supposed to have a decentralized system of government.

Stupid irrelevant argument. You don't need an unrepresentative political system to have decentralized political power. The US system is both decentralized and unrepresentative. You can easily keep it decentralized while making it more representative.

>Your primary law making should happen at a local level. Larger issues go to the states, issues yet larger go to the nation.

I don't like the way you worded the first sentence but I largely agree. The largest, most democratically legitimate body should set laws that can be widely agreed upon then delegate other decisions to smaller, more local, governments.

>Pure democracy is just tyranny of the majority.

What does that even mean? Define pure democracy.

>People should care more about their local elections than whatever dufus from either rival gang that just wants to extort and scam you while blaming the other gang is in the white house.

Depends on the issues they care about. Local governments matter a lot, but it's federal and state governments that make the majority of decisions on major issues like criminal justice, major taxes, environment regulations, broad economic, military, and foreign policy, and basic civil rights. If the most important elections in your life are local elections, you are probably a super privileged person.

−2

DrSquirrelBoy12 t1_ivx1fq6 wrote

>I simply disagree. Laws are about people

I don't think the people in NYC would like their laws decided by the people of Appalachia and vice versa. You realize people live on land right?

>Define pure democracy.

Laws or the president decided by a popular vote would be an example.

I also think the Senate should go back to how the founders intended it with senators appointed by state legislatures.

The House is meant to represent people at the federal level. The Senate is meant to represent each state, and the president is meant to be elected by the states as is the case with the electoral college.

>criminal justice, major taxes, environment regulations, broad economic, military, and foreign policy, and basic civil rights.

Most of these should be handled at most at the state level.
Criminal Justice is mostly a state and local DA level issue.
Taxes are complicated but a higher proportion should be at a local level.
Environmental regulations should only be national where it has a direct impact on another state (ex, MN can't pollute the Mississippi river because that pollution impacts other states).
States should primarily control their economies (to the extent states want to control the economy) with the Feds primarily existing to ensure trade between the states and settle disputes.
Feds should handle the military (sans National Guard units at the state level) and foreign affairs as a representative of the states. This is why states vote for POTUS and Senate, not people (popular vote).
Basic civil rights as in the constitution exist at the federal level. Any other "right" should be at the state level unless it becomes a new amendment to the constitution.

>If the most important elections in your life are local elections, you are probably a super privileged person.

This wasn't a subjective judgement, rather it is an observation of fact that local elections have a more tangible impact on everyone than federal elections. If this isn't the case then something is terribly wrong.

2

Talzon70 t1_ivx2tz8 wrote

I disagree on most of your opinions. Also many of your "facts" are wrong.

−1

hawklost t1_ivtlc4x wrote

For 1 I can only guess something along the lines of 'they didn't have an abortion so they are more likely republican'.

For 2, election reform doesn't usually mean things like requiring gov ID to vote. It means things like switch everything to rank choice or get rid of the two party system.

1

Talzon70 t1_ivvmc5t wrote

>Parenting seems heavily R biased. I didn’t think parenting would be political

It's easy to fear monger to parents and having children, especially at young ages, has got to skew Republican. Democrats tend to be more educated, which means they often postpone having children or don't have children at all.

>Electoral Reform seems heavily D biased. I thought republicans made most noise about corrupt voting processes etc?

Republicans only oppose corrupt/undemocratic voting processes when it doesn't favour them. They are fine with the electoral college, gerrymandering, disenfranchisement of black voters, a very unrepresentative senate electoral process, DC and US territories not being allowed to vote for certain elections, and plurality voting. Most Republicans won't even admit many of these things are problems.

Basically anyone interested in electoral reform in the US would vote Democrat and the democrats are probably advertising to both raise awareness of these issues and get people who care about them out to vote.

1

40for60 t1_ivwft4d wrote

The GOP elevates being a parent to hero level while defunding schools and every system that actually supports children. The name of the game for the GOP is to get their voters to think they are special because they are parents, have a job and believe in Jesus. Obviously the Dems don't have kids, don't have jobs and don't believe in Jesus then. Dem voters in the US are typically better educated, wealthier, healthier and more urban and the non-sense about being special because you have a job or are a parent doesn't work, Dems want actual policies and not ass kissing.

1