Democracy is overrated, some in MAGA base say

[aubiefifty 18,260]

I see some truth coming out. lord help us..............

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/democracy-overrated-maga-125053450.html?

[I_M4_AU 8,953]

1 hour ago, aubiefifty said:

I see some truth coming out. lord help us..............

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/democracy-overrated-maga-125053450.html?

We are a Democratic Republic, not a true Democracy.  Otherwise Hillary, who won the popular vote in 2016, would have been president.  Nice spin though.

[arein0 1,105]

It could be because Republicans have only won the popular vote 1 time since '92. 

[Mims44 2,009]

4 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

I see some truth coming out. lord help us..............

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/democracy-overrated-maga-125053450.html?

Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

 

[I_M4_AU 8,953]

57 minutes ago, arein0 said:

It could be because Republicans have only won the popular vote 1 time since '92. 

History tells us we have always been a Democratic Republic not just since 1992.

[auburnatl1 6,189]

55 minutes ago, arein0 said:

It could be because Republicans have only won the popular vote 1 time since '92. 

It is a little nutty that Wyoming and Delaware have the same electoral votes (3) but Delaware has double the population. The winner take all model is screwy enough, but the not prorating electoral votes below 3 per state is some pretty lazy math.

[AU9377 6,041]

15 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

It is a little nutty that Wyoming and Delaware have the same electoral votes (3) but Delaware has double the population. The winner take all model is screwy enough, but the not prorating electoral votes below 3 per state is some pretty lazy math.

It is certainly hard to justify to those in other parts of the world when discussing our system.

[auburnatl1 6,189]

1 minute ago, AU9377 said:

It is certainly hard to justify to those in other parts of the world when discussing our system.

We’re a state-centric model - but there are some pretty simple tweaks (ie eliminating winner takes all, and prorating electoral votes/state down to 1 vs the current 3 minimum) which would dramatically improve the accuracy of the math.

[arein0 1,105]

23 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Does that make you proud?

I'm indifferent. Just pointing out interesting stats.

[aubiefifty 18,260]

i would bet my butt against third base maga would love for trump to become a dicktator................i have seen a few remarks here and there.

[homersapien 12,247]

12 hours ago, arein0 said:

I'm indifferent. Just pointing out interesting stats.

I misunderstood. 

But it is a superb indicator of how obsolete our electoral system is.  Like AU9377 said, it's a bad look to present the rest of the world.

[Mims44 2,009]

12 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

i would bet my butt against third base maga would love for trump to become a dicktator................i have seen a few remarks here and there.

11 hours ago, homersapien said:

I misunderstood. 

But it is a superb indicator of how obsolete our electoral system is.  Like AU9377 said, it's a bad look to present the rest of the world.

I do like being the minority voice on these forums, but I hope ya'll get the point of my earlier post in this thread. True democracy is terrible.... the whole "two wolves and a lamb voting" bit.

The thread got off-topic quick to electoral votes etc.... but doesn't change the fact that we would not want/enjoy a total democracy.

[Leftfield 3,382]

2 hours ago, Mims44 said:

I do like being the minority voice on these forums, but I hope ya'll get the point of my earlier post in this thread. True democracy is terrible.... the whole "two wolves and a lamb voting" bit.

The thread got off-topic quick to electoral votes etc.... but doesn't change the fact that we would not want/enjoy a total democracy.

I wasn't under the impression that anyone here was looking for a pure democracy, unless I missed it. The discussion was about electoral college vs popular vote. 

[DKW 86 7,910]

Who in the hell thought winner take all electoral college votes was fair, just, correct, etc. 

It is none of those things. Getting rid of winner takes all electoral college would greatly change the outcomes. 

In CA, instead of 55 votes going to Team Blue, they would get 35 ECVs and Team Red would get 20 ECVs in 2020 election. Difference:  Red +20, Blue -20
In TX, instead of 40 votes going to Team Blue, they would get 19 ECVs and Team Red would get 21 ECVs in 2020 election. Difference:  Red -19, Blue +19
In NY, instead of 28 votes going to Team Blue, they would get 17 ECVs and Team Red would get 7 ECVs in 2020 election. Difference:  Red +7, Blue -7
In FL, instead of 30 votes going to Team Blue, they would get  14 ECVs and Team Red would get 15 ECVs in 2020 election. Difference:  Red -14, Blue +14
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     TOTAL: RED -6, BLUE +6

This is just four states, but we do see a difference. WTA is unfair to Voters.

WTA comes from the first general election loser to win the presidency,

John Quincy Adams lost the popular vote to Andrew Jackson but won the Electoral College vote due to WTA EC Voting.

This happened in 1824, Seems 2024 would be the ideal date to end all of this garbage.

 

Edited June 15 by DKW 86

[Cardin Drake 2,077]

Good luck with that. Never going to happen.  Blue states would make their insecure,  easy to fraud,  mail in balloting elections even less secure.  

[SLAG-91 1,612]

On 6/13/2024 at 4:27 PM, auburnatl1 said:

It is a little nutty that Wyoming and Delaware have the same electoral votes (3) but Delaware has double the population. The winner take all model is screwy enough, but the not prorating electoral votes below 3 per state is some pretty lazy math.

Two of every state's EVs come from the senators, and every state has at least one congressional district representative in the House, which is where the minimum of 3 comes from.

D.C. has its own unique rules for its 3 EVs, not being a state and all. For all the difference it makes, you could probably roll theirs in with Maryland and no one outside of D.C. would notice or care much.

Allotting by congressional district would seem to be the logical in-between, but the catch there is that the states draw their own districts and there are a lot of districts that are gerrymandered within an inch of their lives (I know there are federal VRA considerations in play which explains some of the geographic strangeness).

More states could choose to go the Maine and Nebraska route and opt for one (or more) of their congressional districts to go to the popular vote winner in the district, but I don't think any of them want to dilute their impact. I'm a little surprised New Hampshire doesn't do this, because they are the least blue state in New England...might not be any impetus to change it, for all I know.

The Interstate Vote Compact that's out there would be a non-starter for me...states basically selling out their EVs to the popular vote winner is a much worse idea than the winner-take-all approach that most states use. I'd never vote for a president again if that were to ever be put in place.

Edited June 15 by SLAG-91

[homersapien 12,247]

 

9 hours ago, Mims44 said:

I do like being the minority voice on these forums, but I hope ya'll get the point of my earlier post in this thread. True democracy is terrible.... the whole "two wolves and a lamb voting" bit.

The thread got off-topic quick to electoral votes etc.... but doesn't change the fact that we would not want/enjoy a total democracy.

Not sure what you mean by a "pure" democracy, but to me, it means every piece of legislation is put to a popular vote. 

In other words, electing our representatives by a majority vote is not a "pure" democracy, just a better one than we have, at least if one believes in majority rule.

Edited June 15 by homersapien

[Mims44 2,009]

 

9 hours ago, Leftfield said:

I wasn't under the impression that anyone here was looking for a pure democracy, unless I missed it. The discussion was about electoral college vs popular vote. 

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

 

Not sure what you mean by a "pure" democracy, but to me, it means every piece of legislation is put to a popular vote. 

In other words, electing our representatives by a majority vote is not a "pure" democracy, just a better one than we have, at least if one believes in majority rule.

 

Right, but sometimes what we respond to in thread is not exactly the way the link portrays it, IE: CNN’s Donie O’Sullivan explores why many MAGA Republicans are claiming that America is a republic, not a democracy.

In the case of the article they lead with that odd line about MAGAs 'claiming' America is a republic. The MAGAs they interview are definitely off base with their thinking, but the journalist spin is off as well. The US is of course a mix of representative democracy/constitutional republic. We have a way to grow through democratic action We also have set rules for the land that are (or are supposed to be) inviolate.

In a pure democracy everything could be subject to change via new sentiment or an overly charismatic leader. Which can easily lead to disaster.

 

And reading that line from the link reminded me of that quote from childhood...

 

Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99% vote.

 

[AUDub 11,957]

17 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99% vote.

The one thing you can say about Democracy is that everything else is worse. 

[Leftfield 3,382]

20 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

 

 

Right, but sometimes what we respond to in thread is not exactly the way the link portrays it, IE: CNN’s Donie O’Sullivan explores why many MAGA Republicans are claiming that America is a republic, not a democracy.

In the case of the article they lead with that odd line about MAGAs 'claiming' America is a republic. The MAGAs they interview are definitely off base with their thinking, but the journalist spin is off as well. The US is of course a mix of representative democracy/constitutional republic. We have a way to grow through democratic action We also have set rules for the land that are (or are supposed to be) inviolate.

In a pure democracy everything could be subject to change via new sentiment or an overly charismatic leader. Which can easily lead to disaster.

 

And reading that line from the link reminded me of that quote from childhood...

 

Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99% vote.

 

I agree with you on that...it is somewhat misleading. They should have put more emphasis on the fact they're looking at the reasons MAGAs choose to call it that. 

On the surface it seems it should be pretty obvious: it's more cumbersome to say "Democratic Republic" instead of just "Democracy" or "Republic", but Democrats choose to say Democracy more often and Republicans go with Republic. The fact is, though, that the "we're a Republic, not a Democracy" phrase really started to catch fire during Bush/Gore, the first time in more than 100 years that the person who lost the popular vote became President. It became advantageous for Republicans to focus on the "we have laws" part of the equation rather than the "people choose their leaders" part.

 

Edited June 15 by Leftfield

[homersapien 12,247]

27 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99% vote.

 

I like Churchill's comment on democracy:

 

‘Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’

[homersapien 12,247]

36 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

In a pure democracy everything could be subject to change via new sentiment or an overly charismatic leader. Which can easily lead to disaster.

Well, apparently - and ironically - that seems to be true with the Republican's "republic" as well, as the Dobbs decision proved.  A basic right of women was removed.

[Gowebb11 9,898]

Sorry to disappoint, but nothing about our voting system is changing. Our Congress is busy investigating, indicting, impeaching, and mean tweeting. That, plus their ongoing interviews on Fox and CNN is occupying all of their time. They can’t be bothered  to do something for the American 🇺🇸 people right now. 
 

*sarcasm intended*

[Mims44 2,009]

29 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Well, apparently - and ironically - that seems to be true with the Republican's "republic" as well, as the Dobbs decision proved.  A basic right of women was removed.

Not to derail this thread into an abortion thread but I think the crux of that one is more of a "When does a human being gain the rights afforded by the constitution"

With the far side on one end saying it's the absolute second sperm meets egg, and the far other side saying nut until the human can successfully escape the womb.

And then the majority in the middle for one reason or another feel 12, 15, or 20 weeks is when rights should be granted. But like quote below says;

20 minutes ago, Gowebb11 said:

Sorry to disappoint, but nothing about our voting system is changing. Our Congress is busy investigating, indicting, impeaching, and mean tweeting. That, plus their ongoing interviews on Fox and CNN is occupying all of their time. They can’t be bothered  to do something for the American 🇺🇸 people right now. 
 

*sarcasm intended*

I don't think we have a lot of people in our government who are dedicated to setting a real foundational status regarding a timeline for human rights, as they are too busy bickering and back biting. With some on both sides (Thinking MTG and AOC) believing that riling up their base is more important than actually doing their job.

[homersapien 12,247]

34 minutes ago, Gowebb11 said:

Sorry to disappoint, but nothing about our voting system is changing. Our Congress is busy investigating, indicting, impeaching, and mean tweeting. That, plus their ongoing interviews on Fox and CNN is occupying all of their time. They can’t be bothered  to do something for the American 🇺🇸 people right now. 
 

*sarcasm intended*

Yep. It's a vicious circle.

I contend that the the system - which gives inordinate amount of power to the minority accentuates the problem.

One quick example: The recent SOCUS ruling regarding what precisely constitutes a machine gun or automatic weapon - which I think is absurd on its face.  I think it was Alito who said it could be easily resolved by a congressional act, but everyone knows that won't happen even though a majority of the populace would support it.

We have a lot of issues that are being prohibited by a minority of the populace due to our system.

 

Edited June 15 by homersapien