What GOVT changes do you welcome?

[Baruch]

Thomas Jefferson Wertenbaker (sp)..The Puritan Oligarchy....good read, small book more like a large pamphlet, read it about 20 years ago. Interesting stories on early us history, includes some eye raising stuff on the  Mathers and the witch trials and Puritans hanging Quakers and ....oh lots of good stuff.

Yes, Yankees are assholes.  Just ask the British ;-)

[aitm]

Yes, Yankees are assholes.  Just ask the British ;-)

But they weren’t Yankees, they were British subjects...🤫

[aitm]

As I mentioned earlier, I am on the fence with regard to electoral college. I see what majority rule is like in a small town. Why would we think it would be that much different or better on a large scale?

[Hydra009]

If the majority were truly allowed to rule we would still have slavery.

Would we?

Here we are nearly 300 years later and still 30 % of the population would put them uppity blacks back in their place.

Is 30% a majority?

And with regards to racial justice / policing reform, the general public is far ahead of Congress.  QED.

I see what majority rule is like in a small town.

And Shoe can see minority rule in hers.  Again, which one would you prefer?

[aitm]

I prefer what we have, a system, though perhaps not perfect, that grants a semblance of balance to a large diverse population of divergent interests where one local could overun the minority unless checked by other interests not so inclined.

[aitm]

Is 30% a majority?

Not as a nation, but as far as states go, when 65% of one is in the majority and in another that is only 35% then we reach a mutual agreement for the betterment of all. No different that the simple concept of mutual beneficiaries of tribal collective.

[Hydra009]

I prefer what we have, a system, though perhaps not perfect, that grants a semblance of balance to a large diverse population of divergent interests where one local could overun the minority unless checked by other interests not so inclined.

And this system gives someone living in Wyoming more of a say in presidential elections than someone living in California.  It does indeed protect minority interests, though not in the way you think.  It allows a campaign with minority support (read: less votes) to win elections and it allows a small number of well-connected individuals to push through agendas that are wildly unpopular.  The Founders were not perfect, and in fact, made plenty of mistakes (they were aware of this as well, hence the Amendment system)

And Americans largely understand that it's a mistake because you never see Americans tout the wisdom of the electoral college to people from other Western countries.  "It's so great, ya gotta try it!"  Never happens.  No, the electoral college is either a source of embarrassment/shame or something that people wrongly believe is a load-bearing fixture of democracy (other Western countries are proof that it's not, but they rarely realize this)

I believe in majority rule.  And I believe in one-person-one-vote.

An electoral college system is not only fundamentally incompatible with those ideas, it was set up for that express purpose, apparently under the idea that us common people can't be trusted.  And bizarrely, you have common people buy into that idea.  Sheesh!  Have some self-respect!

Finally, here is an example of "tyranny of the majority": a majority of Americans support universal healthcare.  It hit a majority way back in 2016, over 4 years ago.  That's what would be enacted today if the majority truly ruled in America.  In our current system, how many years (or decades) will it take for that majority support to translate into actual policy?

It's like that for a whole lot of issues, everything from the War on Drugs (minority wisdom right there) to racial justice (what happens to a dream deferred?).  Congress always lags behind the people.  And thereby, America lags behind a lot of other countries.

This isn't one of those issues where there's a case to be made for both sides.  This is an inherently disenfranchising system and it's long past time for it to go.

[Hydra009]

Not as a nation, but as far as states go, when 65% of one is in the majority and in another that is only 35% then we reach a mutual agreement for the betterment of all. No different that the simple concept of mutual beneficiaries of tribal collective.

Run that by me again, I don't think I fully understand what you're getting at.  My source of confusion is the fact that in state elections, candidates win by popular vote (which, presumably, you have no problem with) but presidential candidates win by electoral votes (which you apparently prefer to popular vote).

Do you have a truly consistent position?

[aitm]

Finally, here is an example of "tyranny of the majority": a majority of Americans support universal healthcare.  It hit a majority way back in 2016, over 4 years ago.  That's what would be enacted today if the majority truly ruled in America.  In our current system, how many years (or decades) will it take for that majority support to translate into actual policy?

Americans are not allowed to vote by popular vote on such issues, we have to bow to a rep who bests fits our interest. Same can be said of gay rights 20 years ago, or abortion 60 years ago, Majority rule can be awful fickle if it disagrees with you.

[aitm]

  My source of confusion is the fact that in state elections, candidates win by popular vote (which, presumably, you have no problem with) but presidential candidates win by electoral votes (which you apparently prefer to popular vote).

I fail to see your confusion. The whole of this conversation is that ,majorities cannot over run neighboring minorities simply by force. Better arguments were made by the founders, it was their idea, and for the most part I think correct.

[Hydra009]

Americans are not allowed to vote by popular vote on such issues, we have to bow to a rep who bests fits our interest. Same can be said of gay rights 20 years ago, or abortion 60 years ago

That proves my point.  A majority backed gay rights before Congress.  Same with abortion.  The popular opinion is pretty solid for gay rights, less solid for abortion, but still a majority.  Yet Presidential administrations have often come out against both and we've often had a majority in Congress against both.  Why, when they represent us so well?  There's an undeniable discrepancy between popular consensus and the agendas of those in high office, and a big part of that is the fact that citizens don't directly elect Presidents.

Majority rule can be awful fickle if it disagrees with you.

It wouldn't be much of a democracy if things always go the way that I want.  I'm prepared to hash it out even if I'm talking to a brick wall at times.  The people can eventually be convinced, it's the minority special interests who cannot be reasoned with.  A less-than-perfect majority rule is practically utopian compared to minority rule by a corrupt oligarchy.  You can see a lot of that in Russia and China and North Korea, even here to some extent.  The choice couldn't be more stark or obvious.

[Mr.Obvious]

Not my country of course, but how 'bout giving the right to vote to the 3.5 million Americans living in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa.
Oh, and unless anyone can give areal good explanation, what about cutting out the electoral college? Or at least revising it completely.

[Hydra009]

I fail to see your confusion.

The point is that sometimes we elect representatives by popular vote and sometimes we do not.  My argument is for consistent popular vote.  Your argument is that popular vote is bad except when it isn't, which is not an internally consistent argument, let alone a good argument.

I think this whole issue hinges on a willingness to change convention.  If the US did not already have an electoral college, I doubt that you would propose one.

The whole of this conversation is that ,majorities cannot over run neighboring minorities simply by force.

Should 50 million people outvote 60 million people?  That seems to be what you're arguing for.  It's honestly hard to believe that you don't notice the many ways this is a bad thing.

And do you honestly not realize that many other countries do not have an electoral college system and they're not hellscapes where electoral minorities are "over run" by "tyrannical" mobs?  Pump your brakes with that rhetoric.

[Hydra009]

Not my country of course, but how 'bout giving the right to vote to the 3.5 million Americans living in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa.

I 100% agree.  If it's land controlled by the US, then it should be incorporated into the US and therefore its people should enjoy the same rights as other Americans.  D.C. should have statehood as well for identical reasons.

Oh, and unless anyone can give areal good explanation, what about cutting out the electoral process? Or at least revising it completely.

You mean the electoral college?  Tell me about it.

Does your country have an electoral college?  Do you want one?

[Mr.Obvious]

I 100% agree.  If it's land controlled by the US, then it should be incorporated into the US and therefore its people should enjoy the same rights as other Americans.  D.C. should have statehood as well for identical reasons.
You mean the electoral college?  Tell me about it.

Does your country have an electoral college?  Do you want one?

Yeah, meant college, fixed it.
We don't. And I don't. Seems to serve no purpose but to make things less democratic.