Good answer to a nagging question

Addressing one part of this post - straight democracy (i.e. abolishing electoral college and (small "r") republican representation). It is intriguing how the left complains about the downfall of "democracy" only when there is a challenge to the status quo and also warns of a dictatorship. "One Man, One Vote" "Let the people decide", etc. That sentiment is exactly why our founders installed an electoral college and republican democracy. There is no greater tyrant/dictator than a simple majority of the people. At this stage in our nation's politics, the threat of a single person wielding unlimited power is minor compared to the unelected/unrestrained power of the innumerable agencies/bureaus/departments/etc. One person seeking to curtail that unrestrained "state" power looks like a dictator on the surface to the supporters of big government, but to others the same person is a liberator. Does that answer the question?

 

or what's under the barrel

 

"Straight democracy" is not getting people to vote for a candidate. That is still a democratic republic. "Straight democracy" would be that we all vote on the bills. A republican government is one in which representative make the decisions.

The problem with your statement "There is no greater tyrant/dictator than a simple majority of the people" is that there is: an entrenched minority. I think that our system should balance majoritarian and minority viewpoints. The problem is that literally every branch favors the minority now. A combination of the Senate's minority representation (along with its role in the confirmation of Supreme Court nominees), gerrymandering and the overrepresentation of small states in the House, and the electoral college/Presidency (and its role in the Supreme Court) means that the majority literally does not have their interests protected by the system.

 

You mean Escape From New York, the movie... The Dems "utopia" of their version of the U.S.A.

 

Get some new material. Failing to worship your orange god does not equate to hating the usa.

 

It's your boy, Gavin Newsome, that is enslaving the state of California... Trump wants to kick the commies out of government. It was Hilary hid her server in her bathroom... project much.

I wonder... the attempted murder of a former president will not go away... Your Dem's government will be held accountable for that. Many people are going down.

 

I take it all back Coco, after reading this drivel some people just have brain poisoning and dont even understand democracy or despise it as a principle

 

We'll see...

 

[This got posted/copied incorectly.]

It shouldn't be "news" if you studied the founding and constitutional convention. A tyranny of the 51% was one of the greatest concerns/fears of the founders - if not the driving force behind the development of the electoral college and a bicameral legislature.

In reply to subsequent posters demeaning me for posting "drivel," the insults smack of desperation. If one does not appreciate the dangers posed by the unelected bureaucracies as opposed to the elected officials, I don't know what more to write. Or, one could read the USSC's recent decision and its attempt to rein in the unfettered administrative/regulatory state's unconstitutional overreach. But, I guess those posters are correct that I don't have any meaningful input.

 

Why do Democrats pretend to hate authoritarianism ?

 

Yes.

It's a wonderful debate. You may argue that 51% of popular vote should determine the victor - seems simple enough. Others may be worried that the 51% have no compunction in exploiting the other 49%. It's interesting that this debate obtains after nearly 250 years and pretty much along the same lines - big city/coastal states v. agrarian/small business states. One might go so far as to appreciate the founders' intellect and prescience even if one doesn't like their ultimate decision.

 

When the electoral college was created every state was small business and/or agrarian state lol, and not really that massively different in population either.

 

LOL, right back. Perspective, ratios, context, etc. - basic understanding of early American history may cause you to re-think those statements. For example, there were still farms on Manhattan island, but that didn't make New York City the same as Raleigh, NC.

 

I would be interested in having some kind of ranked choice voting (particularly in the Primaries) but not ready to ditch the electoral college yet.
Case in point in one state that would happen nationwide would be NY state. The city and long island pretty much dictate the laws for the whole state and doesn't take the impact on the rural communities to the west into account at all. It's one reason why the state of NY has denied all fracking / oil exploration in the state. That expansive shale is pretty much under a bunch of farmers property in the west of the state and if they were allowed to drill it would create many multi-millionaires in the rural areas overnight which could upset the power balance for the city. They will tell you it's "environmental reasons" but they are drilling just across the border in PA.