@Wubbzo y’know. I actually kinda like that idea.

@Attika or regional unions at the very least

such as the west coast countries together, the midwest together, etc

@Attika So your logic is that if the hicks tell the city folk what to do it will fix the problem? With the system we currently have a presidential election can be won on literally 23% of the popular vote. Don’t try to tell me that isn’t ridiculous. I’m not even asking you to say that a flat democracy is the right answer, but the system we have currently is fundamentally flawed.

Yeah. Or bring it back to where it used to be, at the founding when each state was a country and simply agreed to work together on various things

@DrRisen no. But giving the low population heartland a chance in an election is important. Actually no, I don’t think that’s ridiculous. I wouldn’t mind it at all, what matters is the states.

Would the USA function well like that today?

Electoral college allows low population states to still represent their interests against a high population state.

I support a regional union for all the US states for example kind of like the EU but different

As far as I’m concerned the president is supposed to be a representative of the federal US, so votes should be counted on the basis of being a member of the US, not on a basis of your state. The representation of states is covered by Congress. @Attika

In a city or small country, maybe a direct democracy would work. But the USA is a massive empire with territories, states and people with completely different ideologies and backgrounds and beliefs. The electoral college is the most efficient way to elect a leader.

@DrRisen I completely disagree. The president is the commander in chief of America and thus should represent every states interest. Congress’s power is limited when compared to the president.

Im not asking for the entire US to be a direct democracy, I’m asking for the Executive branch to be a representation of America as one people.

The united states should be abolished. It is too large and diverse.

🤷🏼‍♂️

damn

Maybe not abolished

And I completely disagree with the concept that Congress is underpowered compared to the president.

But perhaps split up.

If anything they have more power.

@Wubbzo explain

@DoobyCooby each state and territory become sovereign nations or something to that extent

@DrRisen President can use executive orders. Congress can’t.

@Wubbzo what would be the bonuses and negatives?

@Attika the bonuses would that the federal government would not intervene in what each state does, and the negatives would be that some states would likely make poor choices once separating

@Wubbzo better choice I think would be to abolish the federal government.

@Attika well yeah kind of, however I think after abolishing the federal government the states should confederate

Congress alone can introduce legislation. Congress can overrule presidential consent to a law. Congress alone can approve of Supreme Court Justices and therein only affirm pro-Congress justices. Congress alone can modify the constitution. Congress alone can declare war. Congress alone can impeach, convict, and and remove a president. @Attika

Underpowered my ass.

@DrRisen Okay I get you’re Point. Technically you’re wrong cause half of those things the president can do in an executive order. But I get where you’re coming from. So why does it matter if the electoral college stays in or not?

It matters because I believe it is a fundamentally flawed system. Maybe a direct democratic election isn’t the solution, but the method we have now doesn’t cut it. @Attika

lol

imagine not wanting a totalitarian one party dictatorship

^

Lols

@DrRisen so if you’re going to criticize it, what’s you’re solution?

Oh, I forgot to mention that part of the whole amending the constitution means that Congress can essentially give themselves any power at will, and they can directly propose and pass legislation countering executive orders.

Unless the president passes an executive order disbanding congress. 🤷🏼‍♂️

both congresses and the Supreme Court are definitely going to all three team up to take over the government

obviously

Which is theoretically possible.

@DrRisen so what is you’re solution?

If you’re going to push that stretch then you have to acknowledge the 23% as a real possibility. @Attika

I do acknowledge that.

The difference is, I don’t have a problem with the 23% electing a president.

Why not? You have a problem with less 51% of the country electing one because you believe it would introduce the tyranny of the majority. Let alone that this would require the sudden disappearance of sociopolitical groups making compromises in order to cooperate and elect a leader that is perfect for none but good enough for all, instead being replaced by a single monolithic hive mind electing an avatar of their monolithic hive mind. Completely ignore that logical leap. Simply explain why in the world 77% of the population agreeing on a particular person being best to lead the country is a demonstration of the tyranny of the majority instead of common sense.

What about that 77% not winning the electoral college makes it so oppressive and tyrannical as opposed to a 77% that wins the electoral college and is a demonstration of the success of the American election system when the only real difference between the two is a **single vote**?

@Attika

I really do want to be able to figure you out and come to some sort of compromise or mutual understanding, I mean that sincerely, but you’re not making it easy for me.

Oh boy, this must be an even bigger textwall than mine! The anticipation is killing me.

I like to look at results. You have to admit that so far the electoral college has done its job. 95% of the presidents elected get the popular vote alongside the electoral vote. 77% of the country agreeing on what’s best to lead the country on their standards. What’s good for socialists and communists is not going to be good for capitalists and people who love democracy. In a situation like that, you simply can’t have one without the other. We don’t see the left (which is the majority) electing a leader best for all. Yet the electoral college allowed a smaller group to get a president in that represented their needs and if you look at a map, most of the states. You are not going to get a monolithic hive mind with the electoral college, in fact I’d dare say you’d get the monolithic hive mind more with just sticking with the popular vote. Results wise...can you really complain?

Nah lols

And yeah I’d like to be able to come to compromise too.

You seem well learnt. 👌🏻👍🏻

I think a lot of it comes down to I believe wholeheartedly that the electoral college is fair because it allows less dense states to still vie for their interests in the presidencies and not have a monolithic one party dictatorship.

I think you may be slightly misinterpreting my claim. When I was describing the monolithic hive mind, I was attempting to describe what from my point of view you believe would happen in a tyranny of the majority situation.

Oh.

Yeah.

What I’m asserting with that idea is that even in a majority vote situation the tyranny of the majority still wouldn’t occur because it’s not one single majority.

Which is what we see happening. The city populations are a giant monolithic hive mind.

How so?

I disagree. Cities aren’t monoliths in themselves and even large cities can’t realistically get someone elected without some suburban and rural support.

It’s a bunch of factions negotiating to get a *good enough* president, and because of this factor an extremist who cares only for urban populations alone is highly unlikely to get past the initial stages of party nomination.

Suburbs are very close to the cities.

Sorry. I live wayyy our in the country.

But not inherently similar in voting habits.

Like the nearest “city” is 3000 people. So when I say city I’m not just talking about urban areas, but also suburbs and surrounding areas.

why do 75% of Jews vote Democrat?

They are stupid.

it's because different groups vote together

Somewhat ironically the social divide caused by the two party system that is killing us is also saving us. Party lines, though somewhat associated with population density, are not strictly tied to them. To get a party nomination you need broad appeal.

The two party system can and will work. The problem is that one side is no longer cooperating. They are no longer working to help further America’s prosperity.

That being across both population densities, economic classes, and moral lodestars.

@Attika Well, like I said, it’s killing us too.

Like a marriage. If the wife stops supporting the husband or vice versa, begins trashing the spouse and being rebellious, hostile, and sleeping around. The marriage will fall apart.

Yeah.

It’s killing us.

I think a good solution if not a very realistic one is the break the back of the two party system and have a multi-party front similar to that of the UK.

the UK is gay

^

I mean.

Maybe find another example? 😂

I think the UK is the LAST thing we should start mimicking.

Uuhhhhh, Ukraine?

Ukraine is on fire

I don’t think the two front party is bad idea, or multifront party, I actually don’t think that’s really what matters, what matters is that all sides work together.

How about Japan?

...

Can you pick a country not in a state of decline? 😂

Japan is about as dead as my great great grandfather after he got his head blown off by a confederate cannon.

@Attika Can you *find* a country that isn’t in a state of decline?

...

Iran? 😂😂😂

Lols

Jk

Hungary.

Hungary?

Ukraine's President is Jewish, isn't that weird?

Hungary isn’t doing so bad.

In fact they seem to be doing well.

Well your claim that it’s on the incline is correct. The claim it isn’t doing too bad on the other hand... well...

🤷🏼‍♂️