ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

The United States isnt a true democracy though. As I'm sure it's been mentioned at some point in this thread we are a Constitutional Republic.

That aside, with the two party system we have the significant problem of population centers having different political idealogy, and vast differences in the their values and experiences in daily life.

At this point the country has to many interests in all their states, for a true popular vote to work for smaller populations.

California shouldnt supersede the interests of 20 other states for example. It would essentially be a taxation without representation situation all over again (from a Presidential point of view)

We will continue to see deadlock and obstruction, because its the only way for States to stick up for themselves. Having a less "democratic" Presidential election is the only thing keeping the country from true chaos.

What true chaos?

Somebody needs to seriously explain this viewpoint to me, what has trump actually done that is so horrible to the nation that no previous president hasn't done in one shape or form.

He's going to be in for four or eighth years and then somebody else is going to get the job, the end.

The real question is, how many bridges are people prepared to burn in this period.
Because the lack of bridges is going to be the main issue once he is out of office and replaced with a new figurehead.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

Boem wrote:

What true chaos?

Somebody needs to seriously explain this viewpoint to me, what has trump actually done that is so horrible to the nation that no previous president hasn't done in one shape or form.

He's going to be in for four or eighth years and then somebody else is going to get the job, the end.

The real question is, how many bridges are people prepared to burn in this period.
Because the lack of bridges is going to be the main issue once he is out of office and replaced with a new figurehead.

Peace,

-Boem-

True chaos, at least in my example, was adopting a 100% popular vote for President.

The amount of people and portions of the country that would be alienated would be catastrophic, again in my view.

It sounds nice to write or say, but in practice would be a disaster. Hell New York city is closing in on 9 million people. That's more than the lowest 8 or so entire states.

If people cant see the problem there idk what to say.

^I was just commenting in general, not a remark on you.

I mean, your discussing the popular vote stuff because i voiced a general sentiment in regards to trump that turtle then laughed at because i used "majority of the people" when talking about a democratic system.

Which had nothing to do with the point i was making at all.

I don't see a point in this popular vote derail, do you?

Is it relevant to why trump was ellected, or did he simply follow the rules all former presidents followed and won, making it a fair democratic process which should be respected irrelevant of who the person in question is.

The best way to destroy a game is to not respect the fundamental rules both party's agreed on before engaging.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

What true chaos?

Somebody needs to seriously explain this viewpoint to me, what has trump actually done that is so horrible to the nation that no previous president hasn't done in one shape or form.

He's going to be in for four or eighth years and then somebody else is going to get the job, the end.

The real question is, how many bridges are people prepared to burn in this period.
Because the lack of bridges is going to be the main issue once he is out of office and replaced with a new figurehead.

Peace,

-Boem-

True chaos, at least in my example, was adopting a 100% popular vote for President.

The amount of people and portions of the country that would be alienated would be catastrophic, again in my view.

It sounds nice to write or say, but in practice would be a disaster. Hell New York city is closing in on 9 million people. That's more than the lowest 8 or so entire states.

If people cant see the problem there idk what to say.

Having the vote be 100% popular vote wouldn't cause more chaos than what you got now. It would be a better representation and would allow people that are otherwise in a county that is overwhelmingly blue/red to have a voice as their vote would mean something. Someone that's republican and live in california has a pointless vote. The same is true of a democrat in say, georgia. It would also fix gerrymandering.

As for rural vs urban, just find a way to have adequate representation for both in your state. If only one is represented, then there's always a side that misrepresented.

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

True chaos, at least in my example, was adopting a 100% popular vote for President.

The amount of people and portions of the country that would be alienated would be catastrophic, again in my view.

It sounds nice to write or say, but in practice would be a disaster. Hell New York city is closing in on 9 million people. That's more than the lowest 8 or so entire states.

If people cant see the problem there idk what to say.

I think I can see the problem pretty clearly, but the Electoral College isn't really a proper solution to tyranny of the majority. With the College, 65 million voters from 487 counties lose; without it, 63 million voters from 2,626 counties lose. What the College fundamentally does is give land — and the precious natural resources contained therein — something akin to suffrage, which is a decent strategy to avoid alienating the untapped wealth of a growing nation but nowhere near a solution for the fundamental flaw of democracy.

The core of the problem as I see it is an emphasis on national, as opposed to local, governance. The larger a role the federal government plays in the lives of everyday Americans, whether for good or ill, the more devastating it is to be on the losing side, and whether it's 63 or 65 million Americans losing in such a way is a distinction without a difference. The only solution is to reconcentrate federal power in the hands of the states such that Californians vote on the fate of Californians, Nebraskans on the fate of Nebraskans, etc. If the President of the United States is about as relevant to people's everyday lives as the current selection of the Oprah Book Club, people can lose a vote with the dignified sportsmanship of a healthy apathy, and turn their attention to more decisive local elections.

There is simply no way to vote for Leader of the Free World without risking sore-loser rioters burning down city storefronts. So maybe we shouldn't be having, much less voting for, a Leader of the Free World at all, but instead merely a President of the United States of America.

"

faerwin wrote:

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

What true chaos?

Somebody needs to seriously explain this viewpoint to me, what has trump actually done that is so horrible to the nation that no previous president hasn't done in one shape or form.

He's going to be in for four or eighth years and then somebody else is going to get the job, the end.

The real question is, how many bridges are people prepared to burn in this period.
Because the lack of bridges is going to be the main issue once he is out of office and replaced with a new figurehead.

Peace,

-Boem-

True chaos, at least in my example, was adopting a 100% popular vote for President.

The amount of people and portions of the country that would be alienated would be catastrophic, again in my view.

It sounds nice to write or say, but in practice would be a disaster. Hell New York city is closing in on 9 million people. That's more than the lowest 8 or so entire states.

If people cant see the problem there idk what to say.

Having the vote be 100% popular vote wouldn't cause more chaos than what you got now. It would be a better representation and would allow people that are otherwise in a county that is overwhelmingly blue/red to have a voice as their vote would mean something. Someone that's republican and live in california has a pointless vote. The same is true of a democrat in say, georgia. It would also fix gerrymandering.

As for rural vs urban, just find a way to have adequate representation for both in your state. If only one is represented, then there's always a side that misrepresented.

This isn't even a red or blue issue. We are talking about entire communities and states that won't have their interests heard. Hell politicians may not even visit entire regions of the country.

I mean you are talking ENTIRE STATES here, both red and blue voters. Take Arkansas, New Mexico, or Nevada for example. Between 2 and 3 million each per state. Obviously the concerns, issues, and community values are much different than a few large neighborhoods in NY. Both liberals and republicans. Immigration, jobs, gun rights, all vastly different. It would create tremendous friction.

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

This isn't even a red or blue issue. We are talking about entire communities and states that won't have their interests heard. Hell politicians may not even visit entire regions of the country.

I mean you are talking ENTIRE STATES here, both red and blue voters. Take Arkansas, New Mexico, or Nevada for example. Between 2 and 3 million each per state. Obviously the concerns, issues, and community values are much different than a few large neighborhoods in NY. Both liberals and republicans. Immigration, jobs, gun rights, all vastly different. It would create tremendous friction.

It seems to me this is simply an argument against democracy. Which is fine.

I'm not claiming that democracy is perfect. I'll only claim that I don't know of a better way to organize a government.

Note: I'm using democracy in it's more common definition which is really a republic with representatives being being elected by the voters. Rule by the people, especially as a form of government; either directly or through elected representatives (representative democracy). https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/democracy

An addendum to my previous post on the excesses of federal power in the US:

If I ever ran for President, one of my ironclad campaign promises would be to veto every bill that had less than 2/3 of the Senate vote for it, rounded down, with the exception of bills that exclusively repealed previous law, delegating federal authority to the States (although I'd reserve the right to veto such repeals). I wouldn't require the same of the House of Representatives nor round up the two-thirds, because this would make passing a new law one thin Senate vote easier than simply impeaching me; making the passage of law more or equally difficult than impeachment wouldn't be tenable, regardless of desirability.

This would apply even if the Senate majority was of my own party. However, this policy would not apply to Presidential appointees requiring Senate approval.

Any given POTUS can't necessarily require the House of Representatives to act in a bipartisan manner, at least not directly; the way impeachment is written into the Constitution doesn't quite allow for that. But a President of strong will could force both parties in the Senate to cooperate in a bipartisan manner, which might have some indirect effects upon the House.

That's madness, and I am pretty sure you know it.