5 ms·

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 a

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
    - mlindner 2y ago
      The democrats having to overcome a 5pt disadvantage (I haven't checked if this is even accurate) would just be because of the lag in the system with people moving to blue states from red states. If the reverse happens then it'll be biased in the other direction. It's not a structural bias toward one party or the other. Gerrymandering can absolutely causes biases, but gerrymandering is performed by both sides. Saying it's "consistent" when we're only talking about the past 20 years I think is a bit much.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - Forgeties79 2y ago
        Smart money says we’re days away from it being the past 24 years.
        mlindner 2y ago
        "Smart money" ended up wrong.

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
  - mlindner 2y ago
    The democrats having to overcome a 5pt disadvantage (I haven't checked if this is even accurate) would just be because of the lag in the system with people moving to blue states from red states. If the reverse happens then it'll be biased in the other direction. It's not a structural bias toward one party or the other. Gerrymandering can absolutely causes biases, but gerrymandering is performed by both sides. Saying it's "consistent" when we're only talking about the past 20 years I think is a bit much.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - Forgeties79 2y ago
      Smart money says we’re days away from it being the past 24 years.
      - mlindner 2y ago
        "Smart money" ended up wrong.