The Thread of Democrats

[Hermit]

If only he was an ineffective idiot, you could be complaining about Hillary right now.

If Clinton had won the election I'd certainly be complaining about her. She's a neoliberal Wall Street shill and a war hawk. Still better than Trump's social, environmental and economic policies, though.

Waiting for Coito Two's fake list of Trump's alleged achievements now.

[Scot Dutchy]

Any system that involved geographic aspect as part of it can never be democratic.
Two other aspects of the USA election system which is no way democratic are the rules concerning voter registration and the actual election system as they differ from state to state. Never mind gerrymandering and voting days.

[Sean Hayden]

Did you read Lemmy's post about the three-fifths compromise? It sums up the powerful nicely. Those clowns wanted their slaves to count towards their clout in government.

[Scot Dutchy]

Yeah I did. I was told at school many moons ago that the Electoral College and Senate were a way the rich land owners still maintained some control over central government.

[Scot Dutchy]

What really gets me is why does the USA have so many elections?

[laklak]

Only in presidential elections, otherwise every vote is equal.

How about your Senate? Don't states get an equal number of senators each, regardless of their population?

I did think about that before posting. Senatorial elections are within a single state, and in that election every vote is equal. The power the Senators wield once elected may be disproportionate,when compared to state populations, but the election itself is fair. Within the chambers each senator's vote is equal, too. The Senator from New Yorks's vote is equal to the Senator from Delaware.

It all comes down to the purpose of each chamber, the Senate is supposed to represent the interests of the individual state, whereas the House represents the citizens. We didn't directly vote for Senators at first, they were appointed by the state legislatures.

[Scot Dutchy]

Not very democratic though. Mean going back to the Boston Tea Party; "No taxation without representation".
So any representation will do democratic or otherwise. In the old days rich families bought their Senators.

[laklak]

Senators are still for sale, you just have to be more circumspect.

[Scot Dutchy]

Well everyman has his price.

[BarnettNewman]

One person, one vote would have New York City ruling over vast swathes of farmland. Doesn't that seem a bit off-balance to you democracy-lovers?

What does seem off balance is that anyone's vote be worth more than another...

I don't know how to balance it, but I do know that it means that people living in remote communities have no voice, or they do have a voice, but it is drowned out by Montreal.

Are you really OK with Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver exerting authority over vast swaths of land none of them understand?

The Walkerton tragedy occurred in Walkerton not in any urban centre. I’ve met my fair share of country bumpkins who are happy to shit in their own drinking water. They wouldn’t give a shit if the entire province burned to the ground as long as they can drive to Timmys in their over powered pick up truck.

[Cunt]

I've met idiots on every kind of street, road or trail.

What I'm pointing out might not be obvious, but consider that if you import MANY voters into your city may have a very different idea about polluting a remote mountain region while they order their manufactured goods.

That mountain region might get ruined, and it's basically a decision made by strangers half a continent away.

This seems good to you?

Federal power is supposed to be restricted. The losers almost always get pissy about the Electoral College.

At least there will be one more election they lose. They are better off in the opposition anyway.

[BarnettNewman]

I've met idiots on every kind of street, road or trail.

What I'm pointing out might not be obvious, but consider that if you import MANY voters into your city may have a very different idea about polluting a remote mountain region while they order their manufactured goods.

That mountain region might get ruined, and it's basically a decision made by strangers half a continent away.

This seems good to you?

Federal power is supposed to be restricted. The losers almost always get pissy about the Electoral College.

At least there will be one more election they lose. They are better off in the opposition anyway.

What I am saying to you is that it’s usually the locals who will pollute an area in favor of jobs jobs jobs before an urban majority would. Urban people favor green renewables over pipelines and hydrocarbons. So, I’m not sure what your opinion is founded in.

[Svartalf]

Only in presidential elections, otherwise every vote is equal.

How about your Senate? Don't states get an equal number of senators each, regardless of their population?

that doesn't matter since california dwellers don't vote on dakota senators

[Svartalf]

One person, one vote would have New York City ruling over vast swathes of farmland. Doesn't that seem a bit off-balance to you democracy-lovers?

If the farmers want equal say about who is president, they should found cities and make sure there's plenty economic activity there, I m sure there are enough badlands that they would not need to scrap any of their precious field for that, I mean, look at Nevada, cities in the desert man...

[Forty Two]

Only in presidential elections, otherwise every vote is equal.

How about your Senate? Don't states get an equal number of senators each, regardless of their population?

Yes, but only citizens of that state get to vote for Senators for that state. So each vote for senator is equal.

There is nothing undemocratic in having a Senate representing states as political units. That's like how every country in the UN General Assembly gets one vote even though China has 1/5 of the world's population. Each "State" in the UN general assembly is a political unit.

Some parliamentary systems have upper chambers which are likewise not in direct proportion to population. The reason is that governments spread out representation across various stakeholders. And, a union of states means that each state is itself an entity. You wouldn't have a United States if the smaller, more rural states didn't have some protection or representation qua state units.

In Europe, for example, they have the European Parliament which works in conjunction with the European Parliament as a legislature. It has one minister per country. It's composed to represent the "member states." https://europa.eu/european-union/about- ... ncil-eu_en It's not elected purely democratically, and if you compare each country's population, then each minister represents radically different population sizes.