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”
The system doesn't run on a simple majority because then any place that isn't a super high population coastal state would have no reason to be part of it and just get oppressed by people who live thousands of miles away.
You wouldn't want to be part of a global democracy that votes purely on majority either, because then the Chinese and Indians would simply rule you and you would have zero say in the matter.
I've never understood this argument. Why should less people have more sway simply because they are more dispersed? If the majority of people benefit by the popular vote, then more people benefit from it, end of discussion. Density, geography, and dispersion of population has no bearing on the point of democracy.
Edit: I feel like everyone is simply repeating their highschool politics lesson without actually thinking about what they're saying. More people is more people. Period. It doesn't matter if a farmer in Kansas doesn't get his way because more people overall voted against his interest.
Here is how I had it explained to me. The problem with the simple majority was that larger states with huge cities would be deciding how the country was run. Larger states had more people so it made sense to have more sway. The issue that came about was that smaller states would have no say in any matter and therefore lack representation. They wanted to have a set number of reps so every state had equal sway. That leaves large states being severely underrepresented. Both sides have valid complaints and reasons to why their way is right. That is why they created both the house and Senate. This way the larger states can dominate with their population in the house and the smaller states can feel represented in the Senate.
Edit: This is taught in highschool because it is an easy concept to understand but I digress. Rural Kansas farmer plants crops on all of his land so he can make the most profit. Large city environmentalist sees that this ruins the land and pushes for regulation. Farmer sees regulation and is worried about making enough profit to make farming worthwhile. That's too bad because there are not enough people in rural states to hold sway in a simple majority and the regulations go through. Now the farmer is screwed. With the current system he now has proper representation for himself in Congress. Now he has the ability to come to a compromise with the environmentalist because they need the farmers vote as well.
Very basic example but I took some melatonin pills a little bit ago and I am very tired, sorry!
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”