4 ms·

I'm not sure if democracy failed us by electing the pussy grabber or democracy won by reminding us who we truly are as a whole. After all, we the people voted.

by unabst 10y ago

I'm not sure if democracy failed us by electing the pussy grabber or democracy won by reminding us who we truly are as a whole. After all, we the people voted. But then when I hear the popular vote, I SMH. Hillary should have won if every vote counted equally. It would have been a nail-biter since she re-surged at the end. There should be nothing between each person, their vote and the total count which is the voice of the people. No delegates, no electoral colleges, no State borders, no nothing. Anything else is not a pure democracy. We failed democracy.

grzm 10y ago
Just like any tool, we should adapt it so it works best for us. I don't think pure democracy (where every eligible citizen votes on every single decision) is something that should be held as the goal :) That said, I do think we should take a good solid look at whether the electoral college is really what we want.
- unabst 10y ago
  > we should adapt it so it works best for us This is the very definition of rigging. The democratic primary was rigged to favor Hillary (the establishment), and Bernie lost. The national election was rigged to "balance" the voice of States and Trump won. That is the only reason. It's also the only reason Bush won in 2000. The system is already adapted so it works best for "us" except where us is these bubbles of people. If we were to make "us" all of us, then what we need is pure democracy. Otherwise it's the Divided States of America. Every election the State borders could not be more prominent.
  - grzm 10y ago
    I think we might be talking about different things, though perhaps not, so please correct me if I'm misunderstanding you. I was making the distinction between a representative democracy (where we elect representatives to make day-to-day decisions for us, such as the President, Senators, and Representatives.) and pure democracy (where each of us would have to vote on every decision). The Electoral College is something else all together. Your phrase "every election" indicates to me that you're in favor of representative democracy (as am I). I don't think pure democracy scales. Have I understood you correctly?
    - unabst 10y ago
      Ah yes. Pure voting. It always slips my mind that this thing called "pure democracy" exists as anti-representative democracy (which I don't even consider a sane option, so it never crosses my mind). Whenever we are measuring voice or volume, any "system" is rigging. That's the only point I am making.
  - serge2k 10y ago
    > The system is already adapted so it works best for "us" Gerrymandering, a Senate who can say "Fuck you" to a supreme court nomination for a year, The person with the most votes not winning, brutal assaults on voter rights, etc... > Every election the State borders could not be more prominent A popular vote system for president would change that.
    - tedunangst 10y ago
      Huh? gerrymandering doesn't affect the presidential race. It doesn't affect the senate either. The president obviously can't make the senate not say "fuck you", whether popularly elected or not. You'd think he'd have done so already, no? The sitting president was elected with the popular vote, but what has that done to prevent brutal assaults on voter rights?
serge2k 10y ago
> Hillary should have won if every vote counted equally It's actually hard to say. Voter turnout would be radically different. Republicans in California now have a voice, Democrats in Texas do too.
- unabst 10y ago
  Actually you're right. But that change would be for the better. > Republicans in California now have a voice, Democrats in Texas do too. This sounds better to me. It sounds like how it ought to be. If Hillary lost the popular vote, then I'd be content. It's just hard to fathom how "less popular candidate won" and "democracy" can be talking about the same thing (America).
zeveb 10y ago
> Anything else is not a pure democracy. Why do you assume pure democracy is desirable? Do you also prefer every law to be voted on by the entire population (it's a valid point of view, albeit one I disagree with)? The whole point of a republic is to temper the will of the mob. Our electoral college — which represents the fact that the United States are a federal republic — forces candidates to campaign across the states, and the spend the most time in precisely those states which are most evenly-split (the swing states, which is another way of saying the political centre). Eliminating the Electoral College — as, sadly, many wish to do — would do irreparable harm to the United States, perhaps even more severe than popular election of senators.
- unabst 10y ago
  Sorry, I'm only talking about pure voting, not "pure democracy" as in everyone votes for everything. Your support for the electoral college is still support for all votes not being equal at the voter level. My claim is that there is nothing more important than the voices being equal if we are to claim we are a unity of equal people. Any system on top of that is a filter, and is tampering with what is most important. Why must entire States be colored red or blue. That's a filter, and an act of muddling. We're dividing States when what we need to be is United. Even if we elected by popular vote, candidates will still have to campaign and they will still have to go somewhere. Their strategy can be State based, and certainly their choices may differ without this "system" but even with the system in place they are choosing specific States over others. I don't see how these specific States deserve more attention than those that are completely ignored. For there still are States completely ignored with the Electoral College.
pfranz 10y ago
It's not fair to say, "So and so would have won if not for the electoral college." That's about as fair as saying a different candidate would have definitely won if they got the nomination instead. If the candidates were going for popular vote they would have run a completely different campaign, focusing on population dense states. So it's impossible to say the popular vote would have been the same.

by unabst 10y ago

grzm 10y ago

Just like any tool, we should adapt it so it works best for us. I don't think pure democracy (where every eligible citizen votes on every single decision) is something that should be held as the goal :) That said, I do think we should take a good solid look at whether the electoral college is really what we want.

unabst 10y ago
> we should adapt it so it works best for us This is the very definition of rigging. The democratic primary was rigged to favor Hillary (the establishment), and Bernie lost. The national election was rigged to "balance" the voice of States and Trump won. That is the only reason. It's also the only reason Bush won in 2000. The system is already adapted so it works best for "us" except where us is these bubbles of people. If we were to make "us" all of us, then what we need is pure democracy. Otherwise it's the Divided States of America. Every election the State borders could not be more prominent.
- grzm 10y ago
  I think we might be talking about different things, though perhaps not, so please correct me if I'm misunderstanding you. I was making the distinction between a representative democracy (where we elect representatives to make day-to-day decisions for us, such as the President, Senators, and Representatives.) and pure democracy (where each of us would have to vote on every decision). The Electoral College is something else all together. Your phrase "every election" indicates to me that you're in favor of representative democracy (as am I). I don't think pure democracy scales. Have I understood you correctly?
  - unabst 10y ago
    Ah yes. Pure voting. It always slips my mind that this thing called "pure democracy" exists as anti-representative democracy (which I don't even consider a sane option, so it never crosses my mind). Whenever we are measuring voice or volume, any "system" is rigging. That's the only point I am making.
- serge2k 10y ago
  > The system is already adapted so it works best for "us" Gerrymandering, a Senate who can say "Fuck you" to a supreme court nomination for a year, The person with the most votes not winning, brutal assaults on voter rights, etc... > Every election the State borders could not be more prominent A popular vote system for president would change that.
  - tedunangst 10y ago
    Huh? gerrymandering doesn't affect the presidential race. It doesn't affect the senate either. The president obviously can't make the senate not say "fuck you", whether popularly elected or not. You'd think he'd have done so already, no? The sitting president was elected with the popular vote, but what has that done to prevent brutal assaults on voter rights?

serge2k 10y ago

> Hillary should have won if every vote counted equally It's actually hard to say. Voter turnout would be radically different. Republicans in California now have a voice, Democrats in Texas do too.

unabst 10y ago
Actually you're right. But that change would be for the better. > Republicans in California now have a voice, Democrats in Texas do too. This sounds better to me. It sounds like how it ought to be. If Hillary lost the popular vote, then I'd be content. It's just hard to fathom how "less popular candidate won" and "democracy" can be talking about the same thing (America).

zeveb 10y ago

> Anything else is not a pure democracy. Why do you assume pure democracy is desirable? Do you also prefer every law to be voted on by the entire population (it's a valid point of view, albeit one I disagree with)? The whole point of a republic is to temper the will of the mob. Our electoral college — which represents the fact that the United States are a federal republic — forces candidates to campaign across the states, and the spend the most time in precisely those states which are most evenly-split (the swing states, which is another way of saying the political centre). Eliminating the Electoral College — as, sadly, many wish to do — would do irreparable harm to the United States, perhaps even more severe than popular election of senators.

unabst 10y ago
Sorry, I'm only talking about pure voting, not "pure democracy" as in everyone votes for everything. Your support for the electoral college is still support for all votes not being equal at the voter level. My claim is that there is nothing more important than the voices being equal if we are to claim we are a unity of equal people. Any system on top of that is a filter, and is tampering with what is most important. Why must entire States be colored red or blue. That's a filter, and an act of muddling. We're dividing States when what we need to be is United. Even if we elected by popular vote, candidates will still have to campaign and they will still have to go somewhere. Their strategy can be State based, and certainly their choices may differ without this "system" but even with the system in place they are choosing specific States over others. I don't see how these specific States deserve more attention than those that are completely ignored. For there still are States completely ignored with the Electoral College.

pfranz 10y ago

It's not fair to say, "So and so would have won if not for the electoral college." That's about as fair as saying a different candidate would have definitely won if they got the nomination instead. If the candidates were going for popular vote they would have run a completely different campaign, focusing on population dense states. So it's impossible to say the popular vote would have been the same.