this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2024
1048 points (98.9% liked)

politics

19145 readers
2336 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 163 points 2 months ago (29 children)

Cool. Can we also get moving on Ranked Choice Voting?

[–] [email protected] 75 points 2 months ago (3 children)

I'd take RCV over nothing, but STAR and approval are significantly better like the other user said.

Some reasons for approval

  • Addition is the only math involved. So it is extremely easy to get live results during counting. It makes auditing votes extremely easy.
  • It is dead simple to understand, so the least amount of voters will be confused by it.

A longer form explanation of some of the other stuff:

https://dividedwefall.org/star-and-approval-voting/

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Approval voting sounds good.

One issue I see with the star system is that people tend to have preconceptions about star ratings. E.g. some people never rate 5 stars on principle or will rate something 3 stars without realizing that is a 60% rating. My point is I think you might see some weird skew in the results based on this.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 31 points 2 months ago (10 children)

This is the only issue worth campaigning on. Fuck everyone for not realizing it. We will never get this system under control if it continues to misrepresent what the majority wants. There is no amount of bargaining and compromise that will ever bring forth the change we need to stop global climate change. Ranked choice - for its simplicity. Star - for its utility. Etc. Etc. Make the debate strictly about how we will reform voting and push everything else to the end of the list.

BTW, I'm not asking politicians to do this. I'm ask you, the people, if you will make your voice heard and enshrine it with a government that truly represents you.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (27 replies)
[–] [email protected] 107 points 2 months ago (51 children)

I remember being in 3rd grade and learning about the electoral college and thinking, "that's the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard of". Still true to this day.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I've had the same reaction learning about religion 😂

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Learning that it was so rich white people in the south could substitute the votes of newly freed black slaves with theirs is what got me.

All this shit is because they were too fucking nice to the slavers.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Okay guys stop up voting this! Simply let me assure you that I will upvote for you!

If you upvote this comment to 100, I will upvote the way you want me to upvote.

Actually I'll do you better! Look. I know these guys who can upvote. If you upvote my comment past 100, I'll have them vote for you just the way you telepathically have told me to upvote by up voting for me....what? Why would you even need to know me or my friend who hasn't even talked to you directly? That's crazy talk! I'm an upvoter, I upvote. They. My friends who can upvote are true upvoters too. Soon you won't even need to upvote at all! You can just go read all the shit we Upvoted for you! Yey! We call our selves the "Upvotlectoral" college. We learn algebra in this college too, but we never graduate...at least you don't know if we have graduated or not.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (48 replies)
[–] [email protected] 69 points 2 months ago (14 children)

That’s great but do an electoral college majority want to end the electoral college?

[–] explodicle 34 points 2 months ago

Yeah this headline is like "animals disapprove of farm"

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] [email protected] 50 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Cool. Too bad it's never going to happen. The entire US political system is designed to prevent the will of the people from being enacted.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago

America Is Living James Madison’s Nightmare

Madison and Hamilton believed that Athenian citizens had been swayed by crude and ambitious politicians who had played on their emotions. The demagogue Cleon was said to have seduced the assembly into being more hawkish toward Athens’s opponents in the Peloponnesian War, and even the reformer Solon canceled debts and debased the currency. In Madison’s view, history seemed to be repeating itself in America. After the Revolutionary War, he had observed in Massachusetts “a rage for paper money, for abolition of debts, for an equal division of property.” That populist rage had led to Shays’s Rebellion, which pitted a band of debtors against their creditors.

Madison referred to impetuous mobs as factions, which he defined in “Federalist No. 10” as a group “united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” Factions arise, he believed, when public opinion forms and spreads quickly. But they can dissolve if the public is given time and space to consider long-term interests rather than short-term gratification.

To prevent factions from distorting public policy and threatening liberty, Madison resolved to exclude the people from a direct role in government. “A pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction,” Madison wrote in “Federalist No. 10.” The Framers designed the American constitutional system not as a direct democracy but as a representative republic, where enlightened delegates of the people would serve the public good. They also built into the Constitution a series of cooling mechanisms intended to inhibit the formulation of passionate factions, to ensure that reasonable majorities would prevail.

The people would directly elect the members of the House of Representatives, but the popular passions of the House would cool in the “Senatorial saucer,” as George Washington purportedly called it: The Senate would comprise natural aristocrats chosen by state legislators rather than elected by the people. And rather than directly electing the chief executive, the people would vote for wise electors—that is, propertied white men—who would ultimately choose a president of the highest character and most discerning judgment. The separation of powers, meanwhile, would prevent any one branch of government from acquiring too much authority. The further division of power between the federal and state governments would ensure that none of the three branches of government could claim that it alone represented the people.

[–] [email protected] 49 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Add Ranked choice voting along with getting rid of this.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 43 points 2 months ago

sorry, I asked the parliamentarian if we could do democracy today and he told me to go fuck myself :/

[–] [email protected] 40 points 2 months ago (8 children)

Everyone saying this can't happen and stuff but we already have started the process. There is a set of several states that signed a pact that make it vote for the majority. Can't think of the name of it but we only need several more states (not all of them) to meet needed electoral votes to basically bypass the electrical college.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 months ago

As usual, Republican states won't adopt this. And you can expect Republicans to appeal this all the way to the Supreme Court if it ever does get adopted, which the current conservative majority will almost certainly bend over backwards to find "unconstitutional."

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 40 points 2 months ago (5 children)

Large majority of voters want to change a system where the large majority of voters don't have as much say as a a minority of voters.

If the Democrats actually get the house and the senate this election, they should definitely looking into changing the voting system. It would be in their best interest.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 2 months ago (9 children)

Would require a constitutional amendment to do so. 2/3rds majority of the House and Senate and then ratification by 3/4ths of all state legislatures to outright remove it.

Or the interstate voting compact which just needs a couple more states. But that's a less direct mechanism that keeps the electoral college intact, just changes the way electoral votes are distributed.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 months ago

I feel like it would be more realistic to repeal the Apportionment Act of 1911. At the very least, it would correct the massive inequality in congressional apportionment. It would also increase the number of electors in the largest states, which would mostly benefit democrats.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 39 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Well yeah... The electoral college consistently lets a minority opinion override the majority, so of course a majority want it done.

Problem is that minority that gets their way today aren't going to yield if they can help it.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 35 points 2 months ago (5 children)

Thing about the electoral collage is that it doesn't matter what the large majority wants.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 26 points 2 months ago (11 children)

I dunno. I kinda think it’s cool that a state twenty times smaller than my own (Alaska, California) gets an equal share of say to my own. /s

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] [email protected] 26 points 2 months ago (8 children)

I think a bigger component in making this happen is instituting ranked choice voting. Political parties are private institutions that have amassed entirely too much power over our country. Sure, we can vote but electoral college or popular voting and we still are stuck with a candidate selected by one of two private institutions. These private entities are able to control elected officials who stray too far from the party line. As long as large political parties control the candidates our vote holds less power.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 26 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Ending the electoral college and changing to popular vote for the presidency is a very important goal and young people should commit to make it your life's work, because that's how long it will take to get a constitutional amendment done, and only if a sustained effort is made.

In the meantime we can also work toward other goals than can help:

  1. Expand the size of the House of Representatives. The population is now way too big for the number of representatives we have, each representing 1/2 to 3/4 of a million people or more, when the founders envisioned a ratio of 1 per 30,000. Obviously we can't achieve that ratio, but there are several good proposals out there to make it more fair.

  2. Statehood for Washington, DC and Puerto Rico (they deserve representation! and it would add 4 more senate seats).

Then there's our representation in the Senate. Our population is distributed very unevenly among the states which get two senators each. Each Wyoming senator represents less than 300 thousand people; Each California senator represents about 20 Million people (2017 figures). By 2040, 2/3 of Americans will be represented by 30 percent of the Senate, and only 9 states will be home to half the country's population [1]

What can be done about this? What about splitting the most densely populated states into 2 or 3 states? Highly unlikely to ever happen, but it's an idea. Then there's the idea of population redistribution. This is happening all the time anyway, but people could consciously choose to move into lower population states where their vote would count more (and cost of living is lower). With remote work much more acceptable these days, it should be easier for people with certain kinds of jobs to do, but it would also need investors choosing to start businesses in those states instead of always flocking to the high density states. There is a little bit of that happening but not much. Otherwise I don't know how this problem can be solved.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/28/by-2040-two-thirds-of-americans-will-be-represented-by-30-percent-of-the-senate/

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 months ago

While we are at it, we should add 1 more state. That would give us 53, which is a prime number.

We would truly be one nation, indivisible....

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 months ago (10 children)

We could also just make it irrelevant by expanding Congress radically. Adding back all the seats we missed when we froze the numbers in the 1940s. Even better, we were slipping on the ratio of representatives to people even back then so we could go back to the original ratio or something in between. That would be a max of around 10,000 representatives, but you would be far more familiar with your representative and they could do elections without the support of the economic elite or being rich.

That doesn't require an amendment and it functionally obliterates this tyranny of the minority.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 months ago

Yes, please. This shit is so 1787.

load more comments
view more: next ›