4 ms·

In general the courts shouldn't be pushing big ticket ballot propositions... That isn't their place. The reason they're not elected is explicitly so they can't

In general the courts shouldn't be pushing big ticket ballot propositions... That isn't their place. The reason they're not elected is explicitly so they can't be (to the maximum extent possible) affected by the ballot box. A lot of people seem to forget but the maximum amount of democracy isn't the best. Mob rule is not a good system of government.

Forgeties79 2y ago
“Mob rule” is often just this hand wavy argument a party invokes when it wants to force its unpopular positions on the rest of the country or, in the GOP’s case, to defend the electoral college which gives them disproportionate political power. When did Mitch McConnell say “the American people should decide,” aka the “mob”? When he wanted to block a SCOTUS appointment for almost a year. Suddenly the mob was wrong when the shoe was on the other foot and the window of time was barely over a month. Good faith “mob rule” arguments are rare. It’s mostly just an easy appeal to shut down otherwise valid arguments.
- mlindner 2y ago
  No "mob rule" is a direct democracy system that is effectively tyranny of the majority. That system does not and cannot work. All forms of practical democracy are some measure away from that, to varying degrees. Secondly, the electoral college does not give the GOP disproportionate political power. That's a misunderstanding of how it works.
  - Forgeties79 2y ago
    I know what it literally means, what I’m saying is the vast majority of appeals using it are in bad faith. As to your second point, see: the senate. Democrats have 1 more seat which basically translates to 52% of the country to the GOP’s 48%, yet they actually represent 36% more of the country (204mill vs. 150mill) than Republicans do when looking at the populations they represent. It doesn’t have to be one-to-one, but surely you can see that the difference here is striking? This is a consequence of all states getting the exact same number of senators.
    - mlindner 2y ago
      The Electoral College and the Senate are not the same thing and are entirely unrelated to each other. So which are you talking about exactly? Maybe you're just quoting things you heard by rumor? But seeing as you changed the argument to the Senate, I'll respond to that. The Senate was never and is not supposed to be representative of the population. It's supposed to be representative of the states. This is a good thing to keep. That's also why things like Governors being able to simply pick replacement senators without having an election is allowed.
      - Forgeties79 2y ago
        Honestly that was meant to be part 2 of a 2 part thing and I just completely forgot to write part 1. Until the most recent census was finished and electoral map updated (which has been years of work due to unpacking the census plus several states fighting over redistricting) the democrats had to overcome an ~5pt disadvantage to even begin winning due to how the maps are drawn and the FPTP system. Republicans had a distinct advantage which is now a smaller advantage (~1.3-1.7 IIRC). Still, if I was running for president I’d rather be on the side that starts with the weight slightly in their favor. Especially given the razor thin margins elections are seeing now. You can’t lose the popular vote and win the presidency that many times without raising eyebrows. They clearly have electoral and other structural advantages that are well documented at this point. They have won the popular vote I believe 1 time in the last 8 elections. They haven’t won it since 2004. I guarantee you they’ll lose it again this year no matter the electoral outcome. No one even debates it anymore in predicting the outcome, it’s just assumed. The demcorats consistently govern/represent far more Americans and have to overcome an electoral college disadvantage that is now just a slight disadvantage. We can argue all day about whether or not you agree that’s how things should be, but the math is clear here. There really isn’t a whole lot to debate.
        Forgeties79 2y ago
        Sorry not FPTP. Winner takes all re: electoral votes
        2y ago

Forgeties79 2y ago

“Mob rule” is often just this hand wavy argument a party invokes when it wants to force its unpopular positions on the rest of the country or, in the GOP’s case, to defend the electoral college which gives them disproportionate political power. When did Mitch McConnell say “the American people should decide,” aka the “mob”? When he wanted to block a SCOTUS appointment for almost a year. Suddenly the mob was wrong when the shoe was on the other foot and the window of time was barely over a month. Good faith “mob rule” arguments are rare. It’s mostly just an easy appeal to shut down otherwise valid arguments.

mlindner 2y ago
No "mob rule" is a direct democracy system that is effectively tyranny of the majority. That system does not and cannot work. All forms of practical democracy are some measure away from that, to varying degrees. Secondly, the electoral college does not give the GOP disproportionate political power. That's a misunderstanding of how it works.
- Forgeties79 2y ago
  I know what it literally means, what I’m saying is the vast majority of appeals using it are in bad faith. As to your second point, see: the senate. Democrats have 1 more seat which basically translates to 52% of the country to the GOP’s 48%, yet they actually represent 36% more of the country (204mill vs. 150mill) than Republicans do when looking at the populations they represent. It doesn’t have to be one-to-one, but surely you can see that the difference here is striking? This is a consequence of all states getting the exact same number of senators.
  - mlindner 2y ago
    The Electoral College and the Senate are not the same thing and are entirely unrelated to each other. So which are you talking about exactly? Maybe you're just quoting things you heard by rumor? But seeing as you changed the argument to the Senate, I'll respond to that. The Senate was never and is not supposed to be representative of the population. It's supposed to be representative of the states. This is a good thing to keep. That's also why things like Governors being able to simply pick replacement senators without having an election is allowed.
    - Forgeties79 2y ago
      Honestly that was meant to be part 2 of a 2 part thing and I just completely forgot to write part 1. Until the most recent census was finished and electoral map updated (which has been years of work due to unpacking the census plus several states fighting over redistricting) the democrats had to overcome an ~5pt disadvantage to even begin winning due to how the maps are drawn and the FPTP system. Republicans had a distinct advantage which is now a smaller advantage (~1.3-1.7 IIRC). Still, if I was running for president I’d rather be on the side that starts with the weight slightly in their favor. Especially given the razor thin margins elections are seeing now. You can’t lose the popular vote and win the presidency that many times without raising eyebrows. They clearly have electoral and other structural advantages that are well documented at this point. They have won the popular vote I believe 1 time in the last 8 elections. They haven’t won it since 2004. I guarantee you they’ll lose it again this year no matter the electoral outcome. No one even debates it anymore in predicting the outcome, it’s just assumed. The demcorats consistently govern/represent far more Americans and have to overcome an electoral college disadvantage that is now just a slight disadvantage. We can argue all day about whether or not you agree that’s how things should be, but the math is clear here. There really isn’t a whole lot to debate.
      - Forgeties79 2y ago
        Sorry not FPTP. Winner takes all re: electoral votes
      - 2y ago