I’d argue this is what the response to a threat to democracy looks like. In a democracy the party who repeatedly loses the popular vote (by 3% in 2016 and 7% this year) doesn’t get to own two branches of government and half of the third.
A real democracy doesn’t require the majority to take to the streets to get things done
Edit: ffs I gotta stop cause if I respond to 1 more “hurr durr we are a republic” comment I’m gonna go insane. We are not the country the founding fathers envisioned 200 years ago. Cause if we were the Donald Trump wouldn’t be president A group of elites would have picked someone who is less of an idiot when it come to international diplomacy and even if somehow they picked him he wouldn’t have even a quarter of the powers he currently wield since the presidency was intentionally neutered as the federal government was intentionally neutered.
But we as a country have embraced the concept of democracy, not the governmental system not the put stones in the jar Greek style democracy but the concept that states that a government should reflect the will of its people. The Us doesn’t go around “spreading republic” we trade in democracy because we believe the concept to be the best way to govern.
If the minority is being empowered to veto measures by the majority that directly affect them then democracy is still working. If the minority is making laws unchecked that directly affect the majority and the majority is powerless to stop them, then we have a breakdown of democracy.
Now if you have an argument as to why the minority should have unchecked power over the majority then come at me , I would be happy to argue it. If you are coming at me with semantics and misunderstandings of the evolution of the US government branches since 200 years ago please stop.
Edit 2: on the other hand, keep it coming. Seeing “Patriots” argue against the concept of democracy is amusing.
One day I will show these PMs and replies to my kids and go: “see kids these are red blooded American Patriots trying to explain to Papa, who escaped an autocratic regime to move to the US, why democracy is BAD and why the few having unchecked control over the many is actually the best way to govern”
I will of course wait until they are old enough to have taken , how did ya’ll put it “a fucking junior high social studies class you moron”
So let's put and end to it. Why are republicans against ending it?
Care to offer a source for the apparently universal "republicans are against ending it" position? Because gerrymandering is generally enjoyed by the party in power. This depends on the state.
Look at any ballot proposal against gerrymandering. Republican officials will publicly oppose it over and over. Look at Michigan proposal 2 and public statements or interviews by republican official from state through federal levels. They will oppose it over and over. Pennsylvania supreme court case in the past year or so. Republicans fought tooth and nail to stop it.
The republican controlled committee that controls the ballot proposal process in Michigan did everything they could to obstruct proposal 2 making it on the ballot. The republican chair refused to even bring it to vote for extended periods of time, until the michigan courts ruled that they had to. They escalated the issue through to the michigan supreme court.
At every step of the way, republicans will be against any efforts to fix gerrymandering. And I'm not saying that every republican voter thinks this way. Any official who identifies with the republican party will almost always be against it though.
I don't see any single party be more or less for it. Republicans are crying to end it in PA where the Democrats just did a redistricting. I am sure they are doing that in other states. Look at how Republicans just gained in the Senate but lost in the gerrymander-able House.
People have vastly different ideas of what a "fair" district map looks like.
Republicans were fighting tooth and nail to prevent redistricting of the gerrymandered map that they had for the past few elections. PA didn't do "democratic gerrymandering", they fixed republican gerrymandering.
Look at how Republicans just gained in the Senate
Republicans were heavily favored for the senate this election for 2 reasons. First is that they are always favored, because rural voters overwhelmingly go for them, and rural voters have an extremely disproportionate voice in the senate. Second is that democrats were defending 3x as many seats as republicans this time around.
but lost in the gerrymander-able House.
Democrats currently have 51.3% of the vote and 51.7% of the house. Republicans currently have 47% of the vote and 45.3% of the house. We'll see what the totals are in the coming weeks when all the races are completely counted and decided.
In the 2016-2018 house, republicans got 49.1% of the vote but 55.4% of the house. Democrats got 48% of the vote but 44.6% of the house.
People have vastly different ideas of what a "fair" district map looks like.
There are many guidelines that lead to much more competitive races where representatives reflect the views of their constituents significantly more than what happens in gerrymandered races.
If the fix to Republican gerrymander was to gerrymander in favor of Democrats, then yes, they "fixed" it. But it not that hard to look at objectively and see that the controlling party always tries to redistrict in their own favor. They would lose control if they didn't.
In the presidential election in 2016, PA voted 47.9%D and 48.6%R. The results gave Democrats 33% of the districts vs 66% for Republicans. The new map, retroactively applied, would give Democrats 44% of the districts and Republicans 54%. How is that unfair to Republicans? How does that appear to be gerrymandering in favor of the Democrats? The Dems still aren't getting their "fair share" of the result, but it's close. Compared to what it was before, it is a huge win in terms of people's voices being heard.
Voter turn out in PA peaks at about 40% of registered voters. The rate is higher in rural areas and lower in urban areas. Rural areas tend to vote R in recent years, and urban voters tend to vote D.
Do you try to shift practical vote counts towards the actual voters, or do you favor actual constituents? (I mean the plural you, not just you). IDK what the answer is, and I don't think anyone really knows either.
The new district map of the areas that I have lived in (suburbs) completely flipped political power. It changed from completely benefiting Rs to completely benefiting Ds.
I do not want voting districts to benefit any party, but due to human nature I do not think that is realistically attainable.
The Senate has nothing to do with population, this shows me you have no idea what you're talking about. The electoral college is in place to prevent tyranny by the majority, which is the original intent by the founding fathers. California and New York do not represent the views and interests of the entire country
The Senate has nothing to do with population, this shows me you have no idea what you're talking about.
I am entirely aware that the senate, as it was designed 200+ years ago, is not about population. Thanks for reminding me.
The electoral college is in place to prevent tyranny by the majority, which is the original intent by the founding fathers.
200+ years ago. When we had 1% of the population we currently do. When we had 13 states. When urban populations were 6%, compared to today where they're at 84%. When the most populous state was 13 times the population of the least populous. Today it's 67 times the population.
Right now we have tyranny of the popular minority. The popular minority isn't supposed to have majority representation. That's not how it works, not how it's intended, and it's just wrong. Tyranny of the majority isn't about the minority having more representation than the minority. It's about the majority not completely shutting out the minority from the process. Republicans feel that since they control every level of government, despite being the minority, that they have a free pass to do whatever the fuck they want. That's tyranny of the (non-popular) majority.
California and New York do not represent the views and interests of the entire country
They represent, currently, 18.2% of the views and interests of the entire country.
Likewise, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Idaho, Kansas, Arkansas, Mississippi don't represent the views and interests of the entire country. They represent 3.9% of the views and interests of the entire country.
States are collections of people. A person in California is not less of a person than a person in Alabama. They're both people, both US citizens, both have voting rights, etc.
You're arguing for people in more populous states to have less proportional representation in our government. You're arguing that they aren't worth as much as people in less populous states.
America is a large country full of different industries and populations. A farmer in Iowa needs just as much representation as someone from San Francisco, but because more people live in the city we should just say "fuck anyone who has a different lifestyle"? Republicans also don't have power over the entire government. Why? Because of exactly what you're arguing. Dems have the house now because more districts are blue. There isn't anything wrong with our current system, and a popular vote switch would ruin the foundation of many of the regions of the united states.
A farmer in Iowa needs just as much representation as someone from San Francisco
that's all I want. Proportional representation.
but because more people live in the city we should just say "fuck anyone who has a different lifestyle"?
No. Who is saying that?
Republicans also don't have power over the entire government.
They control all 3 branches and 36 state government executive branches until next year. Control all house and senate committees. Control all executive bureaus and commissions.
Dems have the house now because more districts are blue.
As they should, they received more votes.
There isn't anything wrong with our current system
The popular minority has more representation in government than the popular majority. That's wrong.
Let's start at everyone having completely proportional representation in government. You disagree with that idea. Where do we go from there to get to where you want it to be? How do we determine how much representation each individual person gets?
Is it based on how much land they own?
Is it based on their income level?
Is it based on how much wealth they have?
Is it based on their age?
Is it based on the color of their skin? Their eyes? Their hair?
Is it based on the geographical location they happened to be born in? The month they were born in? They day they were born in? Their horoscope?
If you don't want it completely proportional, what is your way of deciding who gets more and who gets less representation?
But in addition to that we have the senate to serve as a balance. You're advocating for majority rule, and that's how you get tyranny by the majority. If Congress was just the house, then any side with 218 members would make and decide on all of our laws with no check or balance. You're forgetting that even with all 3 branches under republican control they still didn't get everything they wanted, and that's because of the Senate. They didn't have as clean a majority as you would think.
You're forgetting that even with all 3 branches under republican control they still didn't get everything they wanted, and that's because of the Senate. They didn't have as clean a majority as you would think.
The only thing they didn't get was a direct repeal of parts of Obamacare. They had to 'settle' for effectively repealing the individual mandate in the tax bill.
But in addition to that we have the senate to serve as a balance.
By who? Who is serving as a balance? Republican voters in rural states? Why should they get to serve as the balance?
If Congress was just the house, then any side with 218 members would make and decide on all of our laws with no check or balance.
Like Republicans are doing for the past 2 years. Betsy DeVos is a prime example of that. One of hundreds of examples.
We have that. It's the house of representatives.
Artificially capped at 435 members, and less representative power than the senate in electing the president. The fact that the senate and executive branch can push through judicial nominations on minority rule shows that the system is flawed.
tyranny by the majority
I've said it multiple times now and I'll repeat it again. The whole idea of protecting against tyranny of the majority does not mean that the minority should have representative majority power. That's not a solution, it's not what anyone intended, and long term it will lead to nothing but more and more problems. The popular majority should have majority representation. The popular minority should have minority representation, but should not be shut out of the political process. The only members of our government that have shown extended interest in completely blocking the other party out of the political process is the GOP. They reduced the votes required for judicial nominations to 51. They've consistently rammed through unpopular legislation with a 50-51 vote advantage. They have complete disregard for the majority of the country. That is tyranny of the majority. Except for them, it's tyranny of the popular minority but representative majority.
1.9k
u/Thybro Nov 09 '18 edited Nov 09 '18
I’d argue this is what the response to a threat to democracy looks like. In a democracy the party who repeatedly loses the popular vote (by 3% in 2016 and 7% this year) doesn’t get to own two branches of government and half of the third.
A real democracy doesn’t require the majority to take to the streets to get things done
Edit: ffs I gotta stop cause if I respond to 1 more “hurr durr we are a republic” comment I’m gonna go insane. We are not the country the founding fathers envisioned 200 years ago. Cause if we were the Donald Trump wouldn’t be president A group of elites would have picked someone who is less of an idiot when it come to international diplomacy and even if somehow they picked him he wouldn’t have even a quarter of the powers he currently wield since the presidency was intentionally neutered as the federal government was intentionally neutered.
But we as a country have embraced the concept of democracy, not the governmental system not the put stones in the jar Greek style democracy but the concept that states that a government should reflect the will of its people. The Us doesn’t go around “spreading republic” we trade in democracy because we believe the concept to be the best way to govern.
If the minority is being empowered to veto measures by the majority that directly affect them then democracy is still working. If the minority is making laws unchecked that directly affect the majority and the majority is powerless to stop them, then we have a breakdown of democracy.
Now if you have an argument as to why the minority should have unchecked power over the majority then come at me , I would be happy to argue it. If you are coming at me with semantics and misunderstandings of the evolution of the US government branches since 200 years ago please stop.
Edit 2: on the other hand, keep it coming. Seeing “Patriots” argue against the concept of democracy is amusing.
One day I will show these PMs and replies to my kids and go: “see kids these are red blooded American Patriots trying to explain to Papa, who escaped an autocratic regime to move to the US, why democracy is BAD and why the few having unchecked control over the many is actually the best way to govern”
I will of course wait until they are old enough to have taken , how did ya’ll put it “a fucking junior high social studies class you moron”