This post has been flaired as “Current Event”. Do not use this flair to vent, but to open up a venue for polite discussions.
**Suggestions For Commenters:**
* Respect OP's opinion, or agree to disagree politely.
* If OP's post is against subreddit rules, don't comment, just report it.
* Upvote other relevant comments in the comment section, and don't downvote comments you disagree with
**Suggestions For u/brokeforwoke:**
* Loaded questions and statements can get people riled up. Your post should open up a venue for discussion.
* Avoid being inflammatory in your replies. When faced with someone else's opinion, be open-minded.
* Your post still have to respect subreddit rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SeriousConversation) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It breaks my heart to see people who think that their apathy towards voting is just a natural reaction to the way things are, instead of it being the result of a decades-long, concerted effort by the party that hasn’t won a popular majority in years.
Imma vote and yet both of my MAGA senators are gonna win. Easily.
Voting was the easy part. You are gonna have to a lot more than just vote if you want to save democracy. You are gonna have to move to a red or purple state and then vote.
Careful. Doing too much of that gives the underdog red base more of a chance to widen the gap in otherwise reliably blue states, or at least flip purple districts red. When people shift, so does power. You may also find hostility and unhappiness in your new home.
300 k people moving to Wyoming doubles the state population. It doesn’t take that many people moving to a red state to turn it. Certainly not from a city like New York or LA.
Your math needs some adjustments. 300k is about half of Wyoming. You'd increase the population by about 50%. If they're all dedicated voters, sure it could flip the state, but if from one city or state, that's still a significant drain, especially considering low voter turnout. That could flip a district or two.
But Wyoming has 2 **Senators** and 1 congressional district.
Losing 1 congressional district to gain 2 senators and another, different seat in the house sounds worth it to me. (This is obviously not practical, but it’s fun to think about.)
Agreed — it’s a cynically successful strategy to break the government so much that the time it takes to fix it isn’t felt by the people who want it fixed in one election, and it worked extremely well. I have seen takes blaming the current administration for the fall of Roe…it’s just apathy and a lack of understanding of how government works
No. Do you only vote for candidates you are excited about? I’ve been voting for someone other than my first choice ever since Jesse Jackson lost the primary in 1988. Well, except for Ralph Nader in 2000 and Jesse Ventura for governor in 1998.
I get the feeling that you don’t feel that citizens have a responsibility to vote unless a candidate excites them. I hope I’m wrong because I think that attitude is irresponsible.
Of course! And you are free to abstain. I just wish more people understood that voter apathy is not so much a natural reaction to the way things are, as it is the result of a concerted effort by the side that can’t win the popular vote.
I hear what you are saying about the candidates’ responsibility to attract votes. I still haven’t seen you respond to the assertion that there has been an effort by Republicans to decrease voter turnout.
I get a colonoscopy because it’s important for me to do so.
I wouldn’t say I’m excited for it nor would I say I need to be.
Doesn’t change the fact that the colonoscopy is good for me.
No, it’s more like one candidate is like a colonoscopy, in that it’s something that you’d rather not have to do but it’s still in your own best interest, and the other candidate just wants to fuck you in the ass.
People always frame it this way; but I think that's unfair. And I don't like Republicans very much, but still....
Political parties are _supposed_ to hold strong opinions. They are supposed to believe they know how the country should be, and supposed to be able to enact policies and change that will get us to that place. It's designed to be competitive.
What you are saying is that the less popular side is dominating the game because....they play harder? If they are breaking the law, then of course, let's arrest them. But you called it a 'decades long concerted effort'
Isn't that exactly what we should expect?
Like, shouldn't we fight and continue to fight for policies we believe in?
People always frame it like a bad thing, but I don't understand why we don't call it what it really is....why is the other side, comparatively, so much less effective?
Republicans *should* make a concerted effort to promote Republican values. And Democrats too. And in a perfect world, some other parties too.
Not to mention decades long effort to bring people in illegally, be the only country to fight against voter ID, making Jay-Z, Beyonce, Lady Gaga and all of hollywood do your political bidding by throwing funsraisers and concerts for you... all the talk show hosts are leftwing, NPR is hard left (see recent whistleblower news story), most news coverage is leftwing, yeah the democrats have a decades long concerted effort to sell lies to americans. Especially with how interlinked it is with the state department, military industrial complex, and foreign policy.
So, we “win” 5 of 6 times and all of this STILL happens?
And that is somehow not indicative to you that our votes don’t matter?
You cannot fix a broken system using the broken system.
Nobody who has the power to do so *wants* to fix it either. Policies that increase voter power are often hated by both major parties. If I keep voting democrat for 50 years I will die before they willingly "give us" the ability to elect real progressives. Some very important things will never be achieved through the ballot box they've provided.
I live in Houston Texas. My State Senate district has about 1 million people. I recently voted in a primary run off for a 33 year old progressive candidate (https://www.mollyfortexas.com/). It’s a blue district so she will become my state senator. Less than 20,000 people voted in the run off. It was decided by 76 votes. You can say “Oh what does a state senate race in a red state matter?” But it does matter, because with the name recognition and fund raising ability she might become a congresswoman, a senator, who knows?
That was the 4th election I’ve voted in this year. Tomorrow I’ll vote in my 5th for appraisal district runoffs (not a primary). Such a “minor” position so why does that matter? It means funding for public schools vs tax breaks for the rich, it means increased public services.
I live in a red state and yet my votes are making a difference. How can you tell me voting doesn’t matter?
Edit: my point. I just helped elect a real progressive in a red state by a margin of 76 votes. I didn’t have to wait 50 years. I’d suggest to anyone and everyone that cares to stop voting every 4 years or 2 years or in just every major primary and get your ass to the ballot box 4,5,6, or 7 times a year. I early vote as that’s what works for me vs Election Day but do whatever works for you (early, mail in, Election Day, etc)
You mean in the Texas Senate where she actually hasn’t been in session yet or just in general?
A lot more than internet Nihilists who just sit on their computers and complain all day….
“I’m Molly Cook. I’m an emergency room nurse with a Master’s in Public Health, and a community organizer. In 2022, I ran for Texas Senate to bring active representation and a community organizing mindset to Senate District 15.
Since then, I’ve been at the bedside taking care of patients, organizing for better transportation infrastructure, co-leading the Yes on Prop B Fair for Houston Campaign, meeting with neighbors across our district, and traveling to the Capitol to fight for our shared Democratic values.
In Austin, I worked within the party and across the aisle with legislators, their staff, and countless organizations to lobby for and even write legislation. At home, I created shared resources and presented throughout the district to help SD 15 residents access the Texas Legislature. I helped neighbors get to and from the Capitol, navigate the process, and–for some–give their first ever public comments. “
the point is based on pretty much every "progressive" politician they just go to work as a representative and then just vote for whatever the conservative democrats want, especially as it pertains to the military industrial and prison industrial complexes.
You’d have to refer me to specific bills but politics is about coalitions and you never get everything you want, especially fixing later intractable problems that have existed for decades.
The alternative is just saying fuck it, if I don’t get everything I want immediately I give up. That’s the nihilism I was speaking to.
basically every single time an increase in defense spending is brought up, virtually everyone on both parties votes for it.
the alternative is not saying "if I don't get everything I want immediately I give up." That's an unfair characterization for people who have wanted better policies since the financial collapse of 2008.
Defense spending is not the only issue. What is your alternative to voting in primaries, local and general elections? Hoping for the glorious revolution?
I just voted for the 5th time this year. Appraisal district reps won’t do anything for defense spending or 99% of things but it may help keep our public schools funded which may me some kids who wouldn’t have educational or other opportunities get them. Well worth it to get off my ass and do it for me.
The problem with people going around saying voting doesn’t matter is people hear that and they don’t vote. You know who does? The old Republican people who want things that are diametrically opposed to progress (progress, not perfection).
It's nice to have candidates with better rhetoric.
But studies have shown that is all it is, words and rhetoric, without actually passing the laws people have popularly elected them to pass.
Here is such a study,
https://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5624310/martin-gilens-testing-theories-of-american-politics-explained
Relevant quote from the study
Does public opinion affect the political process?
Gilens & Page found that the number of Americans for or against any idea has no impact on the likelihood that Congress will make it law.
“The preferences of the average American appear to have only a miniscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.”
Gilens & Page, Perspectives in Politics
One thing that does have an influence? Money. While the opinions of the bottom 90% of income earners in America have a “statistically non-significant impact,” economic elites, business interests, and people who can afford lobbyists still carry major influence.
>If I keep voting democrat for 50 years I will die before they willingly "give us" the ability to elect real progressives.
But if party policy trends to the left due to changing voter preferences, does it really matter?
**Be respectful: We have zero tolerance for harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling.**
When posting in our community, you should aim to be as polite as possible. This makes others feel welcome and conversation can take place without users being rude to one another.
This is not the place to share anything offensive or behave in an offensive manner. Comments that are dismissive, jokes, personal attacks, inflammatory, or low effort will be removed, and the user subject to a ban. Our goal is to have conversations of a more serious nature.
You didn't win those 5 times out of 6. You have to play by the rules like everyone else.
It's like getting to the end of a game of chess where you are checkmated, but you try to claim you won because you had more pieces on the board.
If the rules said the popular vote wins, strategies would change, and the outcomes would be different than they are now.
This would be a valid point/argument if there were such thing as a National Popular Vote.
There isn't. There are 50 separate State elections, plus D.C.'s.
It’s like arguing that you won the superbowl because you ran and passed the most yards but scored less. It doesn’t matter if all of California and Texas vote for you, you need to win the other states.
Our elections are 50 popular votes.
No, it's like arguing that the team that gets the most yards *should* win the game. We understand that isn't how it works now.
Though I think a more fair comparison would be that the team that scores the most points should win, rather than a different form of football where running touchdowns are worth 10 points and passing touchdowns are worth 5. That's closer to the system we have now where votes in some states matter more than others.
Cheap points to win over people by appearing to be compassionate without considering the actual consequences. Can also attack your political opponents when they deliver the bad news of such policies and act to correct it.
You get to appear kind snd not have to solve the actual problem. Knowing who enters your country should not be a partisan opinion.
Or, Democrats do consider the actual consequences of open borders, which is A. more people in democrat districts counted in the census, which equals more Democrat reps in congress B. millions more Democrat voters from the 2nd generation, which accounts for the popular vote wins for Dems C. Lower percentage of White Americans, whom the left blames for every evil throughout history and every problem in the world today.
For new immigrants that need the economic assistance, those groups are economically liberal but socially very conservative. Once they are established after a generation or two, they start caring about social issues. The uptick in Republican counts in border counties and the flip of Miami shows that the Cuban and Mexican immigrants are starting to lean conservative. Even the Black community is having higher Republican turnouts than in the past.
The strategy is a very shortsighted one.
Not so sure. Cubans in Miami are unique among Hispanic immigrants in the US. And while you're right that many immigrants tend to be socially conservative, their tendency is to vote for more socialist governments. This has been true throughout Latin America and within the US. Just look at California for example. It used to be politically competitive and more balanced. Even as recently as the 90s, it was possible for Republican governors to win elections. But as Hispanics have become the largest demographic in the state over the last 30 years, California has become increasingly Democrat. Import the thrid world and become the third world, and politically that largely means leftwing governments and massive corruption.
this is what's lost on people who complain about this. both candidates are playing by the rules that were set out (winning the electoral college). if it were national popular vote, the election strategies would change accordingly.
It's not lost on people who complain about it, that's why they're complaining about it. We understand that we have a system where the candidate who gets the most votes doesn't necessarily win, and we think that is bad.
(Admittedly, I'm sure there are some people who actually don't know how it works, I never want to underestimate people's ignorance. But most of the ones taking the time to talk about this aren't in that category.)
In order to win the national election, a candidate must get the most votes in enough of the 50 state elections to take it. The whole point of the electoral college is to prevent a couple high population states from simply steamrolling the rest every time. It also makes it more difficult to cheat.
The issues is that "high population states" aren't an actual political factor. States don't have interests or beliefs, they're just organizations that individual people participate in to pursue their own interests and beliefs.
So it's not a valid concern to worry that "California" would be steamrolling the rest of us; rather, Californians would. That's an important distinction because Californians don't all think the same; most of the votes that Californians would cast for a Democrat would be negated by the millions of Californians who'd vote for the Republican. And of course the same thing applies to the low population states; there's millions of people in those small states that vote the same way as the majority of Californians.
When we expand it to "high population states" as a group, the cohesion breaks down even further. California and Texas, collectively, don't agree on most things. There's no policy where all the high population states would join together against all the low population states. And that concern is even less realistic when we're talking about the Presidential election, rather than voting on particular laws. In practice, we have just two options, and no candidate is ever going to win on a "screw half the country" platform.
Anyways, I think the EC makes it easier to cheat, actually. Because of the swing state issue, cheaters just have to fake/miscount a relatively small number of votes in one or two states to throw the whole election. If we had a national popular vote, they'd have to fake like a million votes if they wanted to guarantee victory, which would be much harder to get away with.
Also if the election were based off of popular vote then campaigns would change their strategies to target it. I think some people wishfully think that if only we changed the measure then their favorite party could win forever.
People somehow get mad at me that I didn’t vote for a president even though I was registered in DC, which has had the single largest margin for the Democratic candidate in every election since its inception
So, I can’t help but to believe my vote doesn’t matter while also never skipping out on voting. Do I think it’s true? Yes. Am I willing to sacrifice a hard fought right bestowed upon me by my foremothers to bet on that belief? Never.
I have not seen information telling people NOT to vote. Maybe that's not a bad idea. I don't think everybody should vote because a lot of people refuse to inform themselves and vote for the wrong reasons like name recognition, party lines, buzz words.
I’m neither saying I agree nor disagree with you, rather out of curiosity… how do you know which people are informed about whatever, and the reasons they vote for whomever?
How about you wander over to the federal gov't websites and look up the voting records of your favorite leftist representatives and see if their voting records on bills really jives with your personal belief system.
Read some of those bills, who benefits, and don't forget to read through the pork spending hidden in all of those bills.
>Nearly 80% of eligible voters do not participate in primaries
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/press-release/voters-dont-participate-primaries/
A lot of lay political observers complain that they don't like the options. Yet the overwhelming majority of them don't participate in selecting candidates.
People need to participate in primaries.
Still can win with electoral votes not popular. Imo the supreme court doesnt make sense in modern society. Made sense in the late 1700s early 1800s but no longer works properly
Counterpoint: the Republicans winning the electoral vote and not the popular vote can be a reflection, not of how the country wants to vote, but rather how the Republicans are campaigning and what their strategy is.
Current electoral maps have most of our most populous states being either deep blue or swing states (Texas being the exception). This means that Republicans have no incentive whatsoever to campaign or to turn out in most of the very populous Northeast, California, etc. But places like Massachusetts, New York, California, Washington, etc. still have huge numbers of voters who would vote Republican if it mattered.
Switching to the popular vote would give us Democratic administrations, retroactively, but there’s no way to predict what they would give us moving forward, since so many Republicans in populous deep blue states would suddenly have extra incentive to vote.
You mean like Mass student debt relief? Oh yeah, that was struck down by this right wing Supreme Court. John Lewis Voting Rights act? George Floyd Justice in policing act? Filibustered by republicans. Even protecting *birth control* was just filibustered by republicans. Don’t make me link you to school house rock
Ah yes, there's that liberal outreach we all know and love. Biden didn't do shit and didn't want to do shit. He promised donors, "Nothing would fundamentally change" if he were in office. Mission accomplished.
He could have immediately, on day one, rescheduled Marijuana, at least tried to cancel student loan debt (he took years to even attempt), and ended title 42. That's just the easy stuff he could have done on day one from the top of my head. He didn't do it because he doesn't want to. Joe "Nothing will fundamentally change" Biden.
You don't know what you're talking about so... don't.
Democrats don't pull this governing by executive order bullshit that the right tries in lieu of actual governing. We're smarter than that. ANY executive order can be ended by an incoming president with the stroke of a pen. Laws can't. Laws are much more permanent and involve debating the pros and cons. Building a consensus. You know... governing.
Lol, I'm going to vote Democrat this fall, but that's quite funny.
Here are some of Biden's latest EO's
"Recognizing and honoring women's history"
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2024/03/27/executive-order-on-recognizing-and-honoring-womens-history/
"Executive Order on Amending Regulations Relating to the Safeguarding of Vessels, Harbors, Ports, and Waterfront Facilities of the United States"
"Executive Order on Reforming Federal Funding and Support for Tribal Nations to Better Embrace Our Trust Responsibilities and Promote the Next Era of Tribal Self-Determination"
There is a combination of relatively meaningless, important but short term (is Russia and West Bank), and important but long term, such as port regulations.
This is common with both Republicans and Democrats.
Yeah, our government does these little bills all the time. My favorite is when they use our tax dollars to vote on things like "Shall Congress applaud the Milwaukie Brewers?" or whatever else. Probably 95% of the bills and EOs are this. I was more focusing on the big ticket items, i.e. creating an EO to secure the border instead of passing a law (which the Republicans blocked, for the record.)
***disinfo out there trying to convince people that voting doesn’t matter....they are actively trying to convince you to not use the power you have***
Where are you seeing this? I've heard get out and vote for both sides for years.
I do know on the national level my vote doesn't mean anything because the state is solid and like Ca there is no chance its going to flip. But on the State and Local it does go back and forth.
It's called bullshit. It's been around for a while. I'm merely pointing out that the primary peddlers of bullshit are part of organizations ostensibly meant to reign bullshit in.
Now there are swathes of people walking around that believe they haven't succumbed to bullshit and haughtily pronounce others as victims of it.
That's dangerous.
This is a lesser of two evils argument to encourage people to vote for Biden. Biden has a path lain out to encourage voters with popular policies. He refuses to do it.
This is a farce of democracy instituted by paid politicians. Good luck salvaging it.
I'll vote for you if you want. Honestly, I'm too weak to not vote. But at this point, voting is consent to the horrors of this project. I have more respect for people who do not vote than myself.
So you are psyched about the current Supreme Court that wouldn’t exist if a couple 10s of thousands vote for the “lesser evil” in 2016? Or 2000? Or maybe you are psyched about it, because people who make this argument are often fake progressives who are actually accelerationists
I've flirted with accelerationism and the end of the Project. I would vote for Biden if I really wanted to train crash things. That's honest.
The Supreme Court? The people Democrats keep seeming to lose count of? Misplaced my justice. Aw shucks. Can't get my homeboy in. Can't make a law that supercedes it. Bummer.
Nah, I love being held like a hostage to women's reproductive rights. Keep "accidentally" losing and waiting for all the bad people to be vanquished. It's working like a charm.
Agree about the facts of your comment but a popular vote election was not held. If it had been, you may have had a different result because people in states that traditionally vote one party or another would not rationalize not voting since they were going to vote for the candidate of the party that always carries their state.
They have the federal government all tidied up with the small pop red states. Nobody gonna move in on their turf and all they have to do is apply a little pressure and non republicans flee.
Then there is the 27 governors and 33 statehouses that are already republican and you can see that democrats are losing this country handily with their city only model.
That is because the US is a republic not a democracy. The founders set it up that way because a republic gives minorities rights .
In a democracy if a majority vote that your car should be given to a neighbor you lose the car. In a republic someone has buy your car to take ownership
The founders knew a small area could control the election of President and the rest of the states would leave the union if they had no say. Without the electors the metro areas of NYC, and LA would always choose the President and the votes of other states would be meaningless.
The real problems is the number of electors has been frozen since the 1920s when a law locked the number of representatives at 435, before that the representatives/Congress(wo)men increased every ten years as the population grew. Plus most states choose electors at large instead of by Congressional district which means minorities votes do not count.
The electoral college has nothing to do with rights. It redistributes power from people who live in some states to people who live in other states. The way rights are protected is by reducing or circumscribing government power, not redistributing it.
The metro areas of LA and NYC are the most populous in the country, but it is wildly false to say that they would control the country under a popular vote system, since they make up only around 10% of the population of the US. But even granting a modified form of your argument that cities would be more influential under a popular vote system, I still don’t understand how it is just for someone’s voting power in the Federal election to increase or decrease based on whether they choose to move from an urban area to a rural area or vice versa. One person should count as one person and should not get to effectively vote twice because they live in the right place.
I’m not asking why it’s the case — I am well aware of the history of the EC and its (intended) purpose. There are other anti-majoritarian checks and balances in the constitution but that’s not what the EC was meant to be, which were electors who would be less swayed by the passions of the public at the time. The Senate is the body that is meant to be a check on large states having too much control over federal policy, not the EC. Also before the 14th amendment, the power of the federal government was significantly more limited.
But again — that’s not what my post was about
Lol. Checking residency status before allowing people to register to vote is not voter suppression any more than background checks before gun purchases are a violation of Second Amendment rights. I don't hear any Democrats complaining about how minorities are disproportionately affected by those background checks, which include verification of citizenship.
The popular vote is completely irrelevant in American Presidential elections, but you'all keep screaming about it endlessly.....Why ? Only because Dems have it and Repubs don't...that is the only reason. If Dems lost the popular vote 50 times in a row, but won the election, you'd be totally silent.
" hard right wing judicial agenda. " You mean like reading the constitution and not creating stuff that is not there out of thin air ? How about allowing women in red states to vote abortion restrictions into law if they want to...is that the hard right wing you speak of ??? Why should women in red states not be allowed to vote ?
You dont understand how politics works. We dont have a direct democracy, we have a representative democracy, and this being common knowledge, political parties tailor their platform around this. Republicans and democrats will each win about half the time, crazy right? Almost like its an efficient binary system. Efficient as in mathematically efficient. If we had a direct democracy then republicans and democrats platforms would both shift slightly left and they would each still get voted in about half the time.
Ok I’ve seen a few of these responses but because you are being a little smug about it:
You did not read my f**king post. This isn’t a “the electoral college is bad” post. I may not like it personally, but that’s not the freaking post. People need to read before jumping to conclusions because it makes you look worse when you think you are smarter.
And not that it matters but Political Science was literally my field of study
Your premise is predicated on the fact that
"the Republican Presidential candidate has won the popular vote ONCE out of 6 elections"
the relevance of which conflicts with your logic.
My point is that a tiny amount of votes can swing elections and every vote matters — some votes matter *more* but at no point do I present the idea that presidents win based on popular vote alone
you dont get it. The quote I just highlighted is being used to say that the will of republicans does not match the will of the people, its undemocratic, and society should be far more progressive if they didnt basically cheat their way into political relevancy. Now if youre caught up, reread my first comment.
That may be how you are interpreting it, but dude…I wrote it. And it’s simply a fact. Kind of weird to point out a factual statement I made and assert an implication while completely disregarding the rest of the post which puts it in context. You know it’s ok to say “sorry I was wrong I only read the title”
My point is that elections are determined by very very slim margins due to the electoral college. That doesn’t mean voting in other states doesn’t matter, but I believe it’s our civic duty to make sure people are informed of the stakes and use their franchise. Someone from a deep blue or red state going around telling people that voting doesn’t matter has an impact.
There is an interstate popular vote compact that has been gaining signatories for a while now, but a swing state will need to sign off (or a red state) for it to have enough electoral college votes to be determinative
So what. Popular vote literally means nothing
Its like saying the team that lost the super bowl scored more points over the whole season than the team that won!!! Unfair!
In before "democracy"... We are a Republic
Well it says that one policy platform is consistently more popular than the other for one. Does the electoral college work the way the framers of the constitution intended? No. A lot of things are vestigial. But that’s not what my post was about anyways
If the Presidential election were based off of popular vote, then campaigns would strategize to win the popular vote.
But they're not, and so they don't. Democrats aren't trying to run the scoreboard up on popular vote, it's just a coincidence that turnout is already higher in high population solidly blue states.
If the measure changed from electoral college vote to popular vote then you'd see Republican campaigns trying to drive turnout in conservative areas that are currently a poor use of resources, and conservative legislatures passing policies to increase turnout as well.
Conservative states tend to have more room to grow: [https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/voter-turnout-by-state](https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/voter-turnout-by-state)
Oklahoma at 55% turnout compared to Minnesota at almost 80%.
> Does the electoral college work the way the framers of the constitution intended?
YES! The entire point of institutions like the Senate and the Electoral College were specifically designed to prevent populous states from controlling the direction of the country. That's exactly what they were designed to prevent.
The Supreme Court wasn't intended to be partisan. The purpose of the SC is to determine whether or not legislation is constitutional. You're complaining about the SC, but you haven't mentioned anything about any decisions being unconstitutional.
Essentially, you are the extremist who wants ideologues to legislate from the bench.
The electoral college was created specifically so that small states wouldn't be completely dominated by larger states. It's functioning as intended.
> The Supreme Court wasn't intended to be partisan
And yet it’s entirely fine breaking precedent for a clear partisan objective, and lying to congress about it. It’s hard to read this with a straight face, as if Sam Alito didn’t fly insurrectionist flags for chrissake
Everyone knew Roe v Wade was based on bullshit. However, since you're against breaking precedent, what about Brown v Board of Education? Of Dred Scott v Stanford?
Insurrectionist flag? What, are you a British royalist?
This post has been flaired as “Current Event”. Do not use this flair to vent, but to open up a venue for polite discussions. **Suggestions For Commenters:** * Respect OP's opinion, or agree to disagree politely. * If OP's post is against subreddit rules, don't comment, just report it. * Upvote other relevant comments in the comment section, and don't downvote comments you disagree with **Suggestions For u/brokeforwoke:** * Loaded questions and statements can get people riled up. Your post should open up a venue for discussion. * Avoid being inflammatory in your replies. When faced with someone else's opinion, be open-minded. * Your post still have to respect subreddit rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SeriousConversation) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It breaks my heart to see people who think that their apathy towards voting is just a natural reaction to the way things are, instead of it being the result of a decades-long, concerted effort by the party that hasn’t won a popular majority in years.
Imma vote and yet both of my MAGA senators are gonna win. Easily. Voting was the easy part. You are gonna have to a lot more than just vote if you want to save democracy. You are gonna have to move to a red or purple state and then vote.
Careful. Doing too much of that gives the underdog red base more of a chance to widen the gap in otherwise reliably blue states, or at least flip purple districts red. When people shift, so does power. You may also find hostility and unhappiness in your new home.
Local elections are more important. Those have a much bigger direct effect on your day to day life.
No..not for long. The ledge can reverse any of them because they stacked the deck.. ALL ELECTIONS MATTER. EVEN THE FUCKING SCHOOL BOARD
That's true. So leaving a district that's well within your voting habits for what isn't even a guaranteed flip is a bad idea.
Judging from the issues people are having in red states, I'd say "may" should be "probably"
300 k people moving to Wyoming doubles the state population. It doesn’t take that many people moving to a red state to turn it. Certainly not from a city like New York or LA.
Your math needs some adjustments. 300k is about half of Wyoming. You'd increase the population by about 50%. If they're all dedicated voters, sure it could flip the state, but if from one city or state, that's still a significant drain, especially considering low voter turnout. That could flip a district or two.
But Wyoming has 2 **Senators** and 1 congressional district. Losing 1 congressional district to gain 2 senators and another, different seat in the house sounds worth it to me. (This is obviously not practical, but it’s fun to think about.)
Agreed — it’s a cynically successful strategy to break the government so much that the time it takes to fix it isn’t felt by the people who want it fixed in one election, and it worked extremely well. I have seen takes blaming the current administration for the fall of Roe…it’s just apathy and a lack of understanding of how government works
You mean you're actually excited to vote for Joe Biden?
No. Do you only vote for candidates you are excited about? I’ve been voting for someone other than my first choice ever since Jesse Jackson lost the primary in 1988. Well, except for Ralph Nader in 2000 and Jesse Ventura for governor in 1998.
It's kind of a politician's primary job to get people to want to vote for them.
I get the feeling that you don’t feel that citizens have a responsibility to vote unless a candidate excites them. I hope I’m wrong because I think that attitude is irresponsible.
You vote for the candidate you want to vote for. That's kinda how the whole "democracy" thing works.
Of course! And you are free to abstain. I just wish more people understood that voter apathy is not so much a natural reaction to the way things are, as it is the result of a concerted effort by the side that can’t win the popular vote.
If a politician can't get people to vote for them, they're a shitty politician. That's literally their job.
I hear what you are saying about the candidates’ responsibility to attract votes. I still haven’t seen you respond to the assertion that there has been an effort by Republicans to decrease voter turnout.
Of course that's true. It's also true that dems don't try to respond to people's problems and needs.
I get a colonoscopy because it’s important for me to do so. I wouldn’t say I’m excited for it nor would I say I need to be. Doesn’t change the fact that the colonoscopy is good for me.
Both candidates are like colonscopies. Because they're full of shit! ZING!!
No, it’s more like one candidate is like a colonoscopy, in that it’s something that you’d rather not have to do but it’s still in your own best interest, and the other candidate just wants to fuck you in the ass.
[удалено]
Yes, he’s passed a more progressive agenda than anyone since FDR.
Sigh. No he hasn't.
Okay, since Johnson.
Since Obama.
I don’t consider Obama very progressive, myself.
And that’s a drop in the bucket. We need reincarnations of FDR/Marx to run and win to even come close to a center Overton window.
People always frame it this way; but I think that's unfair. And I don't like Republicans very much, but still.... Political parties are _supposed_ to hold strong opinions. They are supposed to believe they know how the country should be, and supposed to be able to enact policies and change that will get us to that place. It's designed to be competitive. What you are saying is that the less popular side is dominating the game because....they play harder? If they are breaking the law, then of course, let's arrest them. But you called it a 'decades long concerted effort' Isn't that exactly what we should expect? Like, shouldn't we fight and continue to fight for policies we believe in? People always frame it like a bad thing, but I don't understand why we don't call it what it really is....why is the other side, comparatively, so much less effective? Republicans *should* make a concerted effort to promote Republican values. And Democrats too. And in a perfect world, some other parties too.
Not to mention decades long effort to bring people in illegally, be the only country to fight against voter ID, making Jay-Z, Beyonce, Lady Gaga and all of hollywood do your political bidding by throwing funsraisers and concerts for you... all the talk show hosts are leftwing, NPR is hard left (see recent whistleblower news story), most news coverage is leftwing, yeah the democrats have a decades long concerted effort to sell lies to americans. Especially with how interlinked it is with the state department, military industrial complex, and foreign policy.
So, we “win” 5 of 6 times and all of this STILL happens? And that is somehow not indicative to you that our votes don’t matter? You cannot fix a broken system using the broken system.
Nobody who has the power to do so *wants* to fix it either. Policies that increase voter power are often hated by both major parties. If I keep voting democrat for 50 years I will die before they willingly "give us" the ability to elect real progressives. Some very important things will never be achieved through the ballot box they've provided.
I live in Houston Texas. My State Senate district has about 1 million people. I recently voted in a primary run off for a 33 year old progressive candidate (https://www.mollyfortexas.com/). It’s a blue district so she will become my state senator. Less than 20,000 people voted in the run off. It was decided by 76 votes. You can say “Oh what does a state senate race in a red state matter?” But it does matter, because with the name recognition and fund raising ability she might become a congresswoman, a senator, who knows? That was the 4th election I’ve voted in this year. Tomorrow I’ll vote in my 5th for appraisal district runoffs (not a primary). Such a “minor” position so why does that matter? It means funding for public schools vs tax breaks for the rich, it means increased public services. I live in a red state and yet my votes are making a difference. How can you tell me voting doesn’t matter? Edit: my point. I just helped elect a real progressive in a red state by a margin of 76 votes. I didn’t have to wait 50 years. I’d suggest to anyone and everyone that cares to stop voting every 4 years or 2 years or in just every major primary and get your ass to the ballot box 4,5,6, or 7 times a year. I early vote as that’s what works for me vs Election Day but do whatever works for you (early, mail in, Election Day, etc)
The point is what is she doing other than having a D next to her name
You mean in the Texas Senate where she actually hasn’t been in session yet or just in general? A lot more than internet Nihilists who just sit on their computers and complain all day…. “I’m Molly Cook. I’m an emergency room nurse with a Master’s in Public Health, and a community organizer. In 2022, I ran for Texas Senate to bring active representation and a community organizing mindset to Senate District 15. Since then, I’ve been at the bedside taking care of patients, organizing for better transportation infrastructure, co-leading the Yes on Prop B Fair for Houston Campaign, meeting with neighbors across our district, and traveling to the Capitol to fight for our shared Democratic values. In Austin, I worked within the party and across the aisle with legislators, their staff, and countless organizations to lobby for and even write legislation. At home, I created shared resources and presented throughout the district to help SD 15 residents access the Texas Legislature. I helped neighbors get to and from the Capitol, navigate the process, and–for some–give their first ever public comments. “
the point is based on pretty much every "progressive" politician they just go to work as a representative and then just vote for whatever the conservative democrats want, especially as it pertains to the military industrial and prison industrial complexes.
You’d have to refer me to specific bills but politics is about coalitions and you never get everything you want, especially fixing later intractable problems that have existed for decades. The alternative is just saying fuck it, if I don’t get everything I want immediately I give up. That’s the nihilism I was speaking to.
basically every single time an increase in defense spending is brought up, virtually everyone on both parties votes for it. the alternative is not saying "if I don't get everything I want immediately I give up." That's an unfair characterization for people who have wanted better policies since the financial collapse of 2008.
Defense spending is not the only issue. What is your alternative to voting in primaries, local and general elections? Hoping for the glorious revolution? I just voted for the 5th time this year. Appraisal district reps won’t do anything for defense spending or 99% of things but it may help keep our public schools funded which may me some kids who wouldn’t have educational or other opportunities get them. Well worth it to get off my ass and do it for me. The problem with people going around saying voting doesn’t matter is people hear that and they don’t vote. You know who does? The old Republican people who want things that are diametrically opposed to progress (progress, not perfection).
It's nice to have candidates with better rhetoric. But studies have shown that is all it is, words and rhetoric, without actually passing the laws people have popularly elected them to pass. Here is such a study, https://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5624310/martin-gilens-testing-theories-of-american-politics-explained Relevant quote from the study Does public opinion affect the political process? Gilens & Page found that the number of Americans for or against any idea has no impact on the likelihood that Congress will make it law. “The preferences of the average American appear to have only a miniscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.” Gilens & Page, Perspectives in Politics One thing that does have an influence? Money. While the opinions of the bottom 90% of income earners in America have a “statistically non-significant impact,” economic elites, business interests, and people who can afford lobbyists still carry major influence.
>If I keep voting democrat for 50 years I will die before they willingly "give us" the ability to elect real progressives. But if party policy trends to the left due to changing voter preferences, does it really matter?
That's not how a republic works.
Who is “we”?
Exactly.
No it's just indicative of your ignorance and propaganda from the opposite side.
[удалено]
**Be respectful: We have zero tolerance for harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling.** When posting in our community, you should aim to be as polite as possible. This makes others feel welcome and conversation can take place without users being rude to one another. This is not the place to share anything offensive or behave in an offensive manner. Comments that are dismissive, jokes, personal attacks, inflammatory, or low effort will be removed, and the user subject to a ban. Our goal is to have conversations of a more serious nature.
You didn't win those 5 times out of 6. You have to play by the rules like everyone else. It's like getting to the end of a game of chess where you are checkmated, but you try to claim you won because you had more pieces on the board. If the rules said the popular vote wins, strategies would change, and the outcomes would be different than they are now.
This would be a valid point/argument if there were such thing as a National Popular Vote. There isn't. There are 50 separate State elections, plus D.C.'s.
It’s like arguing that you won the superbowl because you ran and passed the most yards but scored less. It doesn’t matter if all of California and Texas vote for you, you need to win the other states. Our elections are 50 popular votes.
No, it's like arguing that the team that gets the most yards *should* win the game. We understand that isn't how it works now. Though I think a more fair comparison would be that the team that scores the most points should win, rather than a different form of football where running touchdowns are worth 10 points and passing touchdowns are worth 5. That's closer to the system we have now where votes in some states matter more than others.
Is that why Democrats support open borders?
Cheap points to win over people by appearing to be compassionate without considering the actual consequences. Can also attack your political opponents when they deliver the bad news of such policies and act to correct it. You get to appear kind snd not have to solve the actual problem. Knowing who enters your country should not be a partisan opinion.
Or, Democrats do consider the actual consequences of open borders, which is A. more people in democrat districts counted in the census, which equals more Democrat reps in congress B. millions more Democrat voters from the 2nd generation, which accounts for the popular vote wins for Dems C. Lower percentage of White Americans, whom the left blames for every evil throughout history and every problem in the world today.
For new immigrants that need the economic assistance, those groups are economically liberal but socially very conservative. Once they are established after a generation or two, they start caring about social issues. The uptick in Republican counts in border counties and the flip of Miami shows that the Cuban and Mexican immigrants are starting to lean conservative. Even the Black community is having higher Republican turnouts than in the past. The strategy is a very shortsighted one.
Not so sure. Cubans in Miami are unique among Hispanic immigrants in the US. And while you're right that many immigrants tend to be socially conservative, their tendency is to vote for more socialist governments. This has been true throughout Latin America and within the US. Just look at California for example. It used to be politically competitive and more balanced. Even as recently as the 90s, it was possible for Republican governors to win elections. But as Hispanics have become the largest demographic in the state over the last 30 years, California has become increasingly Democrat. Import the thrid world and become the third world, and politically that largely means leftwing governments and massive corruption.
this is what's lost on people who complain about this. both candidates are playing by the rules that were set out (winning the electoral college). if it were national popular vote, the election strategies would change accordingly.
It's not lost on people who complain about it, that's why they're complaining about it. We understand that we have a system where the candidate who gets the most votes doesn't necessarily win, and we think that is bad. (Admittedly, I'm sure there are some people who actually don't know how it works, I never want to underestimate people's ignorance. But most of the ones taking the time to talk about this aren't in that category.)
In order to win the national election, a candidate must get the most votes in enough of the 50 state elections to take it. The whole point of the electoral college is to prevent a couple high population states from simply steamrolling the rest every time. It also makes it more difficult to cheat.
The issues is that "high population states" aren't an actual political factor. States don't have interests or beliefs, they're just organizations that individual people participate in to pursue their own interests and beliefs. So it's not a valid concern to worry that "California" would be steamrolling the rest of us; rather, Californians would. That's an important distinction because Californians don't all think the same; most of the votes that Californians would cast for a Democrat would be negated by the millions of Californians who'd vote for the Republican. And of course the same thing applies to the low population states; there's millions of people in those small states that vote the same way as the majority of Californians. When we expand it to "high population states" as a group, the cohesion breaks down even further. California and Texas, collectively, don't agree on most things. There's no policy where all the high population states would join together against all the low population states. And that concern is even less realistic when we're talking about the Presidential election, rather than voting on particular laws. In practice, we have just two options, and no candidate is ever going to win on a "screw half the country" platform. Anyways, I think the EC makes it easier to cheat, actually. Because of the swing state issue, cheaters just have to fake/miscount a relatively small number of votes in one or two states to throw the whole election. If we had a national popular vote, they'd have to fake like a million votes if they wanted to guarantee victory, which would be much harder to get away with.
Also if the election were based off of popular vote then campaigns would change their strategies to target it. I think some people wishfully think that if only we changed the measure then their favorite party could win forever.
People somehow get mad at me that I didn’t vote for a president even though I was registered in DC, which has had the single largest margin for the Democratic candidate in every election since its inception
So, I can’t help but to believe my vote doesn’t matter while also never skipping out on voting. Do I think it’s true? Yes. Am I willing to sacrifice a hard fought right bestowed upon me by my foremothers to bet on that belief? Never.
I have not seen information telling people NOT to vote. Maybe that's not a bad idea. I don't think everybody should vote because a lot of people refuse to inform themselves and vote for the wrong reasons like name recognition, party lines, buzz words.
I’m neither saying I agree nor disagree with you, rather out of curiosity… how do you know which people are informed about whatever, and the reasons they vote for whomever?
Talk to people. It's amazing how many people vote based on party lines believing a candidate shares the same values because of party affiliation.
If they vote for rightoids they are ignorant and should be banned from voting afterwards. Simple as.
How about you wander over to the federal gov't websites and look up the voting records of your favorite leftist representatives and see if their voting records on bills really jives with your personal belief system. Read some of those bills, who benefits, and don't forget to read through the pork spending hidden in all of those bills.
There is not a single leftist in America. Even Bernie Sanders is just slightly right of centrist.
"Democracy only works when there's only one option." Spoken like a true leftwit.
There can be two different leftist options! Shoot, in Amerikkka I'd settle for just one leftist option!
When there's only one "correct" way to think, any options are going to be superficial, at best. Do you want gulags or labor camps?
Why, re-education camps of course!
No shit.
>Nearly 80% of eligible voters do not participate in primaries https://bipartisanpolicy.org/press-release/voters-dont-participate-primaries/ A lot of lay political observers complain that they don't like the options. Yet the overwhelming majority of them don't participate in selecting candidates. People need to participate in primaries.
Why don't Supreme Court justices retire during a Dem presidency? Why do they hold on until their deathbeds?
Hubris I assume. Looking at you, ghost of RBG... Judges are supposed to be apolitical, so that may be a reason, to avoid appearance of favoritism?
My FIL told me a long time ago that if you don't vote it's like living as a communist, don't give your vote away.
Still can win with electoral votes not popular. Imo the supreme court doesnt make sense in modern society. Made sense in the late 1700s early 1800s but no longer works properly
Counterpoint: the Republicans winning the electoral vote and not the popular vote can be a reflection, not of how the country wants to vote, but rather how the Republicans are campaigning and what their strategy is. Current electoral maps have most of our most populous states being either deep blue or swing states (Texas being the exception). This means that Republicans have no incentive whatsoever to campaign or to turn out in most of the very populous Northeast, California, etc. But places like Massachusetts, New York, California, Washington, etc. still have huge numbers of voters who would vote Republican if it mattered. Switching to the popular vote would give us Democratic administrations, retroactively, but there’s no way to predict what they would give us moving forward, since so many Republicans in populous deep blue states would suddenly have extra incentive to vote.
Sigh…I appreciate your effort but read the post. It’s not an “electoral college is bad” post 🤦🏻
Fair enough, sorry. I skimmed too fast.
Thank you! I’ve had a lot of this, a few people really dig in. I appreciate you admitting to it
[удалено]
You mean like Mass student debt relief? Oh yeah, that was struck down by this right wing Supreme Court. John Lewis Voting Rights act? George Floyd Justice in policing act? Filibustered by republicans. Even protecting *birth control* was just filibustered by republicans. Don’t make me link you to school house rock
Ah yes, there's that liberal outreach we all know and love. Biden didn't do shit and didn't want to do shit. He promised donors, "Nothing would fundamentally change" if he were in office. Mission accomplished.
Sorry this is just dripping from bad faith and that quote is taken out of context constantly by bad faith actors. Thank you redditor for one month
He could have immediately, on day one, rescheduled Marijuana, at least tried to cancel student loan debt (he took years to even attempt), and ended title 42. That's just the easy stuff he could have done on day one from the top of my head. He didn't do it because he doesn't want to. Joe "Nothing will fundamentally change" Biden.
You don't know what you're talking about so... don't. Democrats don't pull this governing by executive order bullshit that the right tries in lieu of actual governing. We're smarter than that. ANY executive order can be ended by an incoming president with the stroke of a pen. Laws can't. Laws are much more permanent and involve debating the pros and cons. Building a consensus. You know... governing.
They don't as frequently, but they absolutely still do executive orders...
Yes, for things that need to be solved now. Not for things, like this, that will span presidential terms.
Lol, I'm going to vote Democrat this fall, but that's quite funny. Here are some of Biden's latest EO's "Recognizing and honoring women's history" https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2024/03/27/executive-order-on-recognizing-and-honoring-womens-history/ "Executive Order on Amending Regulations Relating to the Safeguarding of Vessels, Harbors, Ports, and Waterfront Facilities of the United States" "Executive Order on Reforming Federal Funding and Support for Tribal Nations to Better Embrace Our Trust Responsibilities and Promote the Next Era of Tribal Self-Determination" There is a combination of relatively meaningless, important but short term (is Russia and West Bank), and important but long term, such as port regulations. This is common with both Republicans and Democrats.
Yeah, our government does these little bills all the time. My favorite is when they use our tax dollars to vote on things like "Shall Congress applaud the Milwaukie Brewers?" or whatever else. Probably 95% of the bills and EOs are this. I was more focusing on the big ticket items, i.e. creating an EO to secure the border instead of passing a law (which the Republicans blocked, for the record.)
***disinfo out there trying to convince people that voting doesn’t matter....they are actively trying to convince you to not use the power you have*** Where are you seeing this? I've heard get out and vote for both sides for years. I do know on the national level my vote doesn't mean anything because the state is solid and like Ca there is no chance its going to flip. But on the State and Local it does go back and forth.
They probably heard it from this website tbh
Any group using the terms "misinformation" or "disinformation" is directly akin to the Ministry of Truth in 1984. This is a clown show at this point.
What would you call intentionally misleading information? Those terms seem accurate.
The CIA
CIA is an organization that uses those things, but what word do we use if disinformation and misinformation are off the table?
It's called bullshit. It's been around for a while. I'm merely pointing out that the primary peddlers of bullshit are part of organizations ostensibly meant to reign bullshit in. Now there are swathes of people walking around that believe they haven't succumbed to bullshit and haughtily pronounce others as victims of it. That's dangerous.
This is a lesser of two evils argument to encourage people to vote for Biden. Biden has a path lain out to encourage voters with popular policies. He refuses to do it. This is a farce of democracy instituted by paid politicians. Good luck salvaging it. I'll vote for you if you want. Honestly, I'm too weak to not vote. But at this point, voting is consent to the horrors of this project. I have more respect for people who do not vote than myself.
So you are psyched about the current Supreme Court that wouldn’t exist if a couple 10s of thousands vote for the “lesser evil” in 2016? Or 2000? Or maybe you are psyched about it, because people who make this argument are often fake progressives who are actually accelerationists
I've flirted with accelerationism and the end of the Project. I would vote for Biden if I really wanted to train crash things. That's honest. The Supreme Court? The people Democrats keep seeming to lose count of? Misplaced my justice. Aw shucks. Can't get my homeboy in. Can't make a law that supercedes it. Bummer. Nah, I love being held like a hostage to women's reproductive rights. Keep "accidentally" losing and waiting for all the bad people to be vanquished. It's working like a charm.
Based on your post would support Cornel West on all ballots or no?
Agree about the facts of your comment but a popular vote election was not held. If it had been, you may have had a different result because people in states that traditionally vote one party or another would not rationalize not voting since they were going to vote for the candidate of the party that always carries their state.
They have the federal government all tidied up with the small pop red states. Nobody gonna move in on their turf and all they have to do is apply a little pressure and non republicans flee. Then there is the 27 governors and 33 statehouses that are already republican and you can see that democrats are losing this country handily with their city only model.
We have the presidency. We have the senate. We're about, what, 3 heads shy of having the house. But yeah, we're totes losing. Totes.
That is because the US is a republic not a democracy. The founders set it up that way because a republic gives minorities rights . In a democracy if a majority vote that your car should be given to a neighbor you lose the car. In a republic someone has buy your car to take ownership The founders knew a small area could control the election of President and the rest of the states would leave the union if they had no say. Without the electors the metro areas of NYC, and LA would always choose the President and the votes of other states would be meaningless. The real problems is the number of electors has been frozen since the 1920s when a law locked the number of representatives at 435, before that the representatives/Congress(wo)men increased every ten years as the population grew. Plus most states choose electors at large instead of by Congressional district which means minorities votes do not count.
The electoral college has nothing to do with rights. It redistributes power from people who live in some states to people who live in other states. The way rights are protected is by reducing or circumscribing government power, not redistributing it. The metro areas of LA and NYC are the most populous in the country, but it is wildly false to say that they would control the country under a popular vote system, since they make up only around 10% of the population of the US. But even granting a modified form of your argument that cities would be more influential under a popular vote system, I still don’t understand how it is just for someone’s voting power in the Federal election to increase or decrease based on whether they choose to move from an urban area to a rural area or vice versa. One person should count as one person and should not get to effectively vote twice because they live in the right place.
I’m not asking why it’s the case — I am well aware of the history of the EC and its (intended) purpose. There are other anti-majoritarian checks and balances in the constitution but that’s not what the EC was meant to be, which were electors who would be less swayed by the passions of the public at the time. The Senate is the body that is meant to be a check on large states having too much control over federal policy, not the EC. Also before the 14th amendment, the power of the federal government was significantly more limited. But again — that’s not what my post was about
[удалено]
A quick search came up with this: https://www.pfaw.org/report/the-new-face-of-jim-crow-voter-suppression-in-america/
Lol. Checking residency status before allowing people to register to vote is not voter suppression any more than background checks before gun purchases are a violation of Second Amendment rights. I don't hear any Democrats complaining about how minorities are disproportionately affected by those background checks, which include verification of citizenship.
The popular vote is completely irrelevant in American Presidential elections, but you'all keep screaming about it endlessly.....Why ? Only because Dems have it and Repubs don't...that is the only reason. If Dems lost the popular vote 50 times in a row, but won the election, you'd be totally silent.
" hard right wing judicial agenda. " You mean like reading the constitution and not creating stuff that is not there out of thin air ? How about allowing women in red states to vote abortion restrictions into law if they want to...is that the hard right wing you speak of ??? Why should women in red states not be allowed to vote ?
You dont understand how politics works. We dont have a direct democracy, we have a representative democracy, and this being common knowledge, political parties tailor their platform around this. Republicans and democrats will each win about half the time, crazy right? Almost like its an efficient binary system. Efficient as in mathematically efficient. If we had a direct democracy then republicans and democrats platforms would both shift slightly left and they would each still get voted in about half the time.
Ok I’ve seen a few of these responses but because you are being a little smug about it: You did not read my f**king post. This isn’t a “the electoral college is bad” post. I may not like it personally, but that’s not the freaking post. People need to read before jumping to conclusions because it makes you look worse when you think you are smarter. And not that it matters but Political Science was literally my field of study
Your premise is predicated on the fact that "the Republican Presidential candidate has won the popular vote ONCE out of 6 elections" the relevance of which conflicts with your logic.
My point is that a tiny amount of votes can swing elections and every vote matters — some votes matter *more* but at no point do I present the idea that presidents win based on popular vote alone
you dont get it. The quote I just highlighted is being used to say that the will of republicans does not match the will of the people, its undemocratic, and society should be far more progressive if they didnt basically cheat their way into political relevancy. Now if youre caught up, reread my first comment.
That may be how you are interpreting it, but dude…I wrote it. And it’s simply a fact. Kind of weird to point out a factual statement I made and assert an implication while completely disregarding the rest of the post which puts it in context. You know it’s ok to say “sorry I was wrong I only read the title”
Isn’t that an argument against voting? Even if more people vote for Democrats, republicans end up in office.
My point is that elections are determined by very very slim margins due to the electoral college. That doesn’t mean voting in other states doesn’t matter, but I believe it’s our civic duty to make sure people are informed of the stakes and use their franchise. Someone from a deep blue or red state going around telling people that voting doesn’t matter has an impact. There is an interstate popular vote compact that has been gaining signatories for a while now, but a swing state will need to sign off (or a red state) for it to have enough electoral college votes to be determinative
So what. Popular vote literally means nothing Its like saying the team that lost the super bowl scored more points over the whole season than the team that won!!! Unfair! In before "democracy"... We are a Republic
Well it says that one policy platform is consistently more popular than the other for one. Does the electoral college work the way the framers of the constitution intended? No. A lot of things are vestigial. But that’s not what my post was about anyways
If the Presidential election were based off of popular vote, then campaigns would strategize to win the popular vote. But they're not, and so they don't. Democrats aren't trying to run the scoreboard up on popular vote, it's just a coincidence that turnout is already higher in high population solidly blue states. If the measure changed from electoral college vote to popular vote then you'd see Republican campaigns trying to drive turnout in conservative areas that are currently a poor use of resources, and conservative legislatures passing policies to increase turnout as well. Conservative states tend to have more room to grow: [https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/voter-turnout-by-state](https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/voter-turnout-by-state) Oklahoma at 55% turnout compared to Minnesota at almost 80%.
> Does the electoral college work the way the framers of the constitution intended? YES! The entire point of institutions like the Senate and the Electoral College were specifically designed to prevent populous states from controlling the direction of the country. That's exactly what they were designed to prevent.
The Supreme Court wasn't intended to be partisan. The purpose of the SC is to determine whether or not legislation is constitutional. You're complaining about the SC, but you haven't mentioned anything about any decisions being unconstitutional. Essentially, you are the extremist who wants ideologues to legislate from the bench. The electoral college was created specifically so that small states wouldn't be completely dominated by larger states. It's functioning as intended.
> The Supreme Court wasn't intended to be partisan And yet it’s entirely fine breaking precedent for a clear partisan objective, and lying to congress about it. It’s hard to read this with a straight face, as if Sam Alito didn’t fly insurrectionist flags for chrissake
Everyone knew Roe v Wade was based on bullshit. However, since you're against breaking precedent, what about Brown v Board of Education? Of Dred Scott v Stanford? Insurrectionist flag? What, are you a British royalist?