6 ms·

The checks and balances assumed the entire country didn't vote the exact same people into majorities in all 3 branches

by atomicnumber3 2y ago

duxup 2y ago
SCOTUS did their part in declaring the POTUS effectively more equal than everyone else.
pb7 2y ago
[flagged]
- Ekaros 2y ago
  Plurality is the correct term. But this is exactly how representative democracy works. The coalition with most representatives gets to enact policies and decide executive decisions.
- croes 2y ago
  Source? Because Trump wasn't voted by the majority of people.
- quickslowdown 2y ago
  Objectively untrue. Voting irregularities aside, far more people sat the election out entirely, and of those who voted, there was a vanishingly small lead Trump & co had. The majority of the country is disengaged & apathetic. That's worse than a majority "wanting this," in my personal opinion, but the majority of the country did not vote for this, they just didn't vote at all.
  - soco 2y ago
    Which means, the way others argument here (and are downvoted for it) the majority of the country is not particularly bothered by what is going on. No, they didn't approve of this, but also didn't disapprove. So why keeping them aside? Their conscious choice of "let whoever win" has brought the world where it is now just as the vote pro-Trump did, so if it walks and quacks like a Trump helper...
- lukev 2y ago
  They do not. The majority of the country either did not vote, or voted against Trump. Most of those who did vote for Trump did so on the basis of immigration, economic or the culture war -- not so he could dismantle the federal government and (e.g.) halt funding for cancer research. Trump explicitly disavowed Project 2025 when it was clear it was hurting his electoral prospects (even though that plan is precisely what is playing out now.)
  - pb7 2y ago
    Trump won the popular vote which means the majority of the country voted for Trump or did not vote.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      No; of voters, 49.8% picked Trump. A plurality, but not a majority.
      - ryandrake 2y ago
        A no-vote is simply a lazy vote for the winner.
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        These weren't no-votes; they aren't counted in the stat. 49.80% for Trump, 48.32% for Harris, 1.89% for others (Stein, Kennedy, etc.).
        ryandrake 2y ago
        My point is: If one doesn't vote, it's an implicit vote for the winner. Not voting means you're saying "I am supportive of whoever wins" So including those, most presidential elections really aren't that close.
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  Not sure what "this" is that the "majority" of the country wants, but, be careful what you wish for. The fact that the majority of the country is apparently okay with violent and coercive attempts to overturn democratic elections (in other democratic countries we call that an attempted coup), is a strong indictment of the majority of Americans. But, to your credit, at least you're owning your fascist tendencies!
pupppet 2y ago
Trump won the popular vote with 49.8% of votes cast, let’s stop pretending the entire country gave him the mandate to do whatever he wants.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  Fourth smallest margin in POTUS election history.
  - areyousure 2y ago
    In case anyone was curious, I computed some popular margins of victory defined as (%popular vote of winner) - (%popular vote of highest other candidate). I got the following small margins of victory smaller than the 1.5% in 2024, five of which are positive and five of which are negative. -7.8% in 1824, 1.4% in 1844, -3% in 1876, 0% in 1880, 0.6% in 1884, -0.8% in 1888, 0.1% in 1960, 0.7% in 1968, -0.5% in 2000, -2.1% in 2016.
- SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
  Unfortunately, it's winner take all, and I don't think he's ever cared about the consent of the people he's taking advantage of.
- ryandrake 2y ago
  An eligible voter who doesn't vote is effectively a vote for the winner, so a majority was at least complicit.
  - Tadpole9181 2y ago
    Just because you keep repeating this doesn't make it true.
  - kcplate 2y ago
    “Complicit” is an interesting word choice here—as if a non-voter is somehow responsible for wrongdoing? What “wrong” was done here? Trump won because he was democratically elected by every measure we have, both popular vote and electoral college. If your candidate lost it’s because they didn’t earn the votes, have the message, or created the reason for that non-voter to vote for them. The candidate and campaign are more responsible for their loss than the non-voter. You are shifting blame to where it doesn’t belong.
insane_dreamer 2y ago
There have been cases before where both the Executive and Legislative branches have been held by the same party. What's different now is that Trump is trying to consolidate much more power in the Executive branch (an explicit Project2025 goal), and Congress is powerless because the GOP are all afraid of highly vociferous MAGA reprisals (I mean, he did pardon all those who violently stormed the capitol and threatened to kill government officials). Trump's strategy (a smart one, I might add), is to push beyond the boundaries of the law as far and fast as he can and see what, if any, resistance he meets. Nixon attempted something similar but Congress didn't let him get away with it (and passed the Impoundment Control Act, which Trump is now flouting).
- lupusreal 2y ago
  > Congress is powerless because the GOP are all afraid of highly vociferous MAGA reprisals They're afraid of their voters, as they should be, as Trump is more popular with their voters than any of them are. All Trump/Musk need to do is endorse an opponent in their primaries.
  - insane_dreamer 2y ago
    Yeah that's what I meant, but you expressed it more clearly.
  - intended 2y ago
    Dont forget that this is by design. The decision to only vote along partisan lines and punish bipartisan efforts creates this force. Behind this, is the desire to win elections at all costs/.
- Izkata 2y ago
  > What's different now is that Trump is trying to consolidate much more power in the Executive branch He's doing the exact opposite, shutting down and shrinking departments to reduce the power of the executive branch.
georgemcbay 2y ago
Its even worse than the same party having a majority everywhere. Trump's cult-like pull and the associated threat of the world's richest man (who still talks about the dangers of the global elites with no sense of irony) bankrolling a primary against anyone who steps out of line have effectively erased the congress as an independent branch entirely. There are Republicans in the house and senate and even Trump's own administration that I believe aren't aligned with what he is doing but they lack the spine to say so beyond the most superficial talk about their "concerns" (and then still voting for everything he demands).
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  > who still talks about the dangers of the global elites with no sense of irony As with "DEI mayor", "urban youth", "rootless cosmopolitans", etc., it's a euphemism.
  - AlecSchueler 2y ago
    For what?
bananapub 2y ago
it's not just that - it assumed that the courts and legislature would not consent to losing their power. electing a bunch of pathetic apparatchiks to the legislature and letting the Heritage Foundation choose a bunch of lunatics for the courts is why there's no counterbalancing force. the Founders assumed the other branches of government would have some self-respect.

The checks and balances assumed the entire country didn't vote the exact same people into majorities in all 3 branches

duxup 2y ago

SCOTUS did their part in declaring the POTUS effectively more equal than everyone else.

pb7 2y ago

[flagged]

Ekaros 2y ago
Plurality is the correct term. But this is exactly how representative democracy works. The coalition with most representatives gets to enact policies and decide executive decisions.
croes 2y ago
Source? Because Trump wasn't voted by the majority of people.
quickslowdown 2y ago
Objectively untrue. Voting irregularities aside, far more people sat the election out entirely, and of those who voted, there was a vanishingly small lead Trump & co had. The majority of the country is disengaged & apathetic. That's worse than a majority "wanting this," in my personal opinion, but the majority of the country did not vote for this, they just didn't vote at all.
- soco 2y ago
  Which means, the way others argument here (and are downvoted for it) the majority of the country is not particularly bothered by what is going on. No, they didn't approve of this, but also didn't disapprove. So why keeping them aside? Their conscious choice of "let whoever win" has brought the world where it is now just as the vote pro-Trump did, so if it walks and quacks like a Trump helper...
lukev 2y ago
They do not. The majority of the country either did not vote, or voted against Trump. Most of those who did vote for Trump did so on the basis of immigration, economic or the culture war -- not so he could dismantle the federal government and (e.g.) halt funding for cancer research. Trump explicitly disavowed Project 2025 when it was clear it was hurting his electoral prospects (even though that plan is precisely what is playing out now.)
- pb7 2y ago
  Trump won the popular vote which means the majority of the country voted for Trump or did not vote.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    No; of voters, 49.8% picked Trump. A plurality, but not a majority.
    - ryandrake 2y ago
      A no-vote is simply a lazy vote for the winner.
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
        These weren't no-votes; they aren't counted in the stat. 49.80% for Trump, 48.32% for Harris, 1.89% for others (Stein, Kennedy, etc.).
        ryandrake 2y ago
        My point is: If one doesn't vote, it's an implicit vote for the winner. Not voting means you're saying "I am supportive of whoever wins" So including those, most presidential elections really aren't that close.
insane_dreamer 2y ago
Not sure what "this" is that the "majority" of the country wants, but, be careful what you wish for. The fact that the majority of the country is apparently okay with violent and coercive attempts to overturn democratic elections (in other democratic countries we call that an attempted coup), is a strong indictment of the majority of Americans. But, to your credit, at least you're owning your fascist tendencies!

pupppet 2y ago

Trump won the popular vote with 49.8% of votes cast, let’s stop pretending the entire country gave him the mandate to do whatever he wants.

toomuchtodo 2y ago
Fourth smallest margin in POTUS election history.
- areyousure 2y ago
  In case anyone was curious, I computed some popular margins of victory defined as (%popular vote of winner) - (%popular vote of highest other candidate). I got the following small margins of victory smaller than the 1.5% in 2024, five of which are positive and five of which are negative. -7.8% in 1824, 1.4% in 1844, -3% in 1876, 0% in 1880, 0.6% in 1884, -0.8% in 1888, 0.1% in 1960, 0.7% in 1968, -0.5% in 2000, -2.1% in 2016.
SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
Unfortunately, it's winner take all, and I don't think he's ever cared about the consent of the people he's taking advantage of.
ryandrake 2y ago
An eligible voter who doesn't vote is effectively a vote for the winner, so a majority was at least complicit.
- Tadpole9181 2y ago
  Just because you keep repeating this doesn't make it true.
- kcplate 2y ago
  “Complicit” is an interesting word choice here—as if a non-voter is somehow responsible for wrongdoing? What “wrong” was done here? Trump won because he was democratically elected by every measure we have, both popular vote and electoral college. If your candidate lost it’s because they didn’t earn the votes, have the message, or created the reason for that non-voter to vote for them. The candidate and campaign are more responsible for their loss than the non-voter. You are shifting blame to where it doesn’t belong.

insane_dreamer 2y ago

There have been cases before where both the Executive and Legislative branches have been held by the same party. What's different now is that Trump is trying to consolidate much more power in the Executive branch (an explicit Project2025 goal), and Congress is powerless because the GOP are all afraid of highly vociferous MAGA reprisals (I mean, he did pardon all those who violently stormed the capitol and threatened to kill government officials). Trump's strategy (a smart one, I might add), is to push beyond the boundaries of the law as far and fast as he can and see what, if any, resistance he meets. Nixon attempted something similar but Congress didn't let him get away with it (and passed the Impoundment Control Act, which Trump is now flouting).

lupusreal 2y ago
> Congress is powerless because the GOP are all afraid of highly vociferous MAGA reprisals They're afraid of their voters, as they should be, as Trump is more popular with their voters than any of them are. All Trump/Musk need to do is endorse an opponent in their primaries.
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  Yeah that's what I meant, but you expressed it more clearly.
- intended 2y ago
  Dont forget that this is by design. The decision to only vote along partisan lines and punish bipartisan efforts creates this force. Behind this, is the desire to win elections at all costs/.
Izkata 2y ago
> What's different now is that Trump is trying to consolidate much more power in the Executive branch He's doing the exact opposite, shutting down and shrinking departments to reduce the power of the executive branch.

georgemcbay 2y ago

Its even worse than the same party having a majority everywhere. Trump's cult-like pull and the associated threat of the world's richest man (who still talks about the dangers of the global elites with no sense of irony) bankrolling a primary against anyone who steps out of line have effectively erased the congress as an independent branch entirely. There are Republicans in the house and senate and even Trump's own administration that I believe aren't aligned with what he is doing but they lack the spine to say so beyond the most superficial talk about their "concerns" (and then still voting for everything he demands).

ceejayoz 2y ago
> who still talks about the dangers of the global elites with no sense of irony As with "DEI mayor", "urban youth", "rootless cosmopolitans", etc., it's a euphemism.
- AlecSchueler 2y ago
  For what?

bananapub 2y ago

it's not just that - it assumed that the courts and legislature would not consent to losing their power. electing a bunch of pathetic apparatchiks to the legislature and letting the Heritage Foundation choose a bunch of lunatics for the courts is why there's no counterbalancing force. the Founders assumed the other branches of government would have some self-respect.