Voting in US - What's the point?

[Fadeslol]

Just like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is in fact a democratic people's republic.

The truth is that they were propertied upper class men and their actions were motivated by such.



But most of the money and accordingly the political power. Moreover, most of the population couldn't vote regardless.



Which absolves him of the fact he was a lifelong slave owner, right.



Yes, to suppress slave revolts.



So the majority does not overrule the minority regarding what, sir?

1) Oh give me a break. It's not about white people, if you have free market unlike the cancer u have right now, nothing can compete with it. Thats why Germany took our system in the early 1900s before ww1 and took off.

2) If you were American Citizen you could vote unless you were a woman or color. It wasn;t about money.

3) Yes right, he tried to get it outlawed but he couldnt get it past. He did have slaves you're right.

4) ROFL thats funny. No it's about self defense and if the govt ever becomes corrupt, then the citizens could fight back. Also remember the first gun laws came in the country in 1865 to oppose black people so they couldn't fight back the KKK which the Democrats founded.

5) EVERYTHING on the constitution

- - - Updated - - -

We've been saying shit about the electoral college since before 2000, mate.

Thats because Bush stole FL from Gore, there is a difference

[Elegiac]

1) Oh give me a break. It's not about white people, if you have free market unlike the cancer u have right now, nothing can compete with it. Thats why Germany took our system in the early 1900s before ww1 and took off.

What on earth are you on about?

2) If you were American Citizen you could vote unless you were a woman or color. It wasn;t about money.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacksonian_democracy

At the onset of the US, voting was restricted by property ownership.

3) Yes right, he tried to get it outlawed but he couldnt get it past. He did have slaves you're right.

Cool, so he was a massive hypocrite.

4) ROFL thats funny. No it's about self defense and if the govt ever becomes corrupt, then the citizens could fight back. Also remember the first gun laws came in the country in 1865 to oppose black people so they couldn't fight back the KKK which the Democrats founded.

"If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections [under this new Constitution]. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress.... Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution], can call forth the militia." - Patrick Henry.

5) EVERYTHING on the constitution

Namely, slavery.

[Deleted]

If the US had compulsory voting, then the popular vote could be used as an argument, but it doesn't, so nobody knows how a popular vote would have gone.

Those of us who live in countries that use a FPTP system are used to its flaws, so we know that it puts people off voting if they think their vote is worthless. California is a good example; why bother voting if you are a Democrat or Republican? You know the state is going to go Democrat, so stay at home and put your feet up.

Oddly this happened in the Brexit vote as well, even though that was a popular vote, some people assumed Remain would win as the media kept saying so and didn't bother to vote. Polling can effect elections, rather than just report on them.

Yes, I understand now, thanks for explaining.

[Fadeslol]

What on earth are you on about?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacksonian_democracy

At the onset of the US, voting was restricted by property ownership.



Cool, so he was a massive hypocrite.



"If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections [under this new Constitution]. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress.... Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution], can call forth the militia." - Patrick Henry.



Namely, slavery.

BTW sorry if its a pain in the ass to response, i hate breaking it up.

1) They created the country for the people, by the people to create a free market so everyone could become wealthy if they wanted to (That who obviously could at the time)

2) Yes i understand, but you couldn't be a woman or color.

3) Well i guess u can say that but he tried to get it banned in the beginning and couldn't get it.

4) Wrong, they knew that power could corrupt people and they didn't want it to happen to them. George Washington had to put down the Revolts yet he wouldn't take away the 2nd amendment.

5) You can say slavery but that wasn't the main reason for the E.C., it was to protect a Minority from the Majority.

[Spiffums]

No offence but you don't know what the fuck you are talking about and all the people repeating this nonsense need to cut it out.

America is a democracy. Democracy is a very broad term. Most Republics are democratic in one way or another, "democracy" says nothing about how extensive the franchise is or how it is applied. In Australia we don't vote for our Prime Minister directly at all, but we're a democracy (shit, technically we have a fucking Queen). Before black and female suffrage the majority of the US wasn't eligible to vote, and it was a democracy. In ancient Rome you had to be a free man with a certain level of wealth to vote, and it was a democracy. The Greeks chose their rulers by a jury and they "invented" democracy.

And saying it's a Republic, not a Democracy, is like saying "this isn't an apple, it's a fruit".

For the record - a democracy is a pretty vague term for any system where the people rule, through representatives or otherwise, irrespective of how many are enfranchised or through what system. A republic is a sovereign state ruled by elected representatives of the people (rather than a monarch etc). Most (all?) republics are democracies, though some non-republics are also democracies, eg the UK which is technically a constitutional monarchy.

No you dont know what the fuck you're talking about.


As a constitutional republic, the United States government is controlled by its Constitution, which sets forth the relative political power of the people, the federal government and the state governments. As a federal republic, the power ultimately sits with the people through their ability to elect their federal and state representatives. The federal government is restricted by the sharing of power with the states as delineated in the Constitution. Although some people like to call the United States a democracy, this is technically not the case because people do not directly control legislation, but only do so through their elected representatives.

Democracy is just a fancy name for Mob Rule. It has never since its inception been a Democracy. Hell even the pledge tells you that the US of A is a Republic. Some of us paid attention in Civics class and even had several college level Pol-Sci classes. This is not hard stuff like math with letters.

[Roxinius]

So? Why should it remain as such?

why should it change and we allow cali and nyc to decide every election?

[Spiffums]

Dunno about you, and maybe this says more about the school system than anything else, but even through high school history not once was the US ever called anything but a Democracy in my time at school.

If "Republic" was ever even said in the same breath as "United States", it was moreso in an offhanded comment that nobody would ever think important, nor remember to tell the tale about.

Never said the pledge huh? And to the Republic for which it stands. That's what we call a clue.

[jimboa24]

Why vote? Because there's more at stake than the presidential election. Also, "reliable" states (like Pennsylvania) can flip and go the other way. Even California went red when Ronald Reagan ran.

Also, state and local measures. For example, one of the local measures that my family had a personal interest in making sure passed was a measure to grant funding for a new fire station. There's measures on whether or not pot should be legal, and of course, state representatives. Even if you're a Republican in California or a Democrat in Texas, the state and local measures, which ARE decided by popular vote, are alone enough of a reason to vote.

Also, I'm sure it's been covered already, but let me reiterate in case it hasn't been:

America is not now, nor has it ever been, nor was it ever intended to be a pure democracy. It's a democratic republic. So if something seems pretty un-democratic...yeah, no shit Sherlock. It's kind of supposed to be.

[Deleted]

This was the most stupid shit I have ever read so far.

Barrack Obama was president, did he want to change the vote selection? no? Did hillary or Trump get selected for change the system? No?

did any of the above 3 names mention how dumb or stupid it was? No?

guess what they didn't care, cuz they knew how it was. If you want change, go start a campaign of yours and do it, sure if people are willing to support you then it would happend.

Do you see a difference? Right now people are whining over trump won, so what? both trump and hillary knew how the system worked, so the whiny bitches should ofc just shut the hell up. the vote doesn't need to change, the people has to, cuz then the system will as well.

Don't reply bs to me its waste of everyones time, let me know when you start a campaign to make a change, then i'll agree on your points. but random whine, nope.

I'm not the one whining, I'm just pointing out how illogical your points are. You seem to be the one whining about the people you call "whiners". In the end, I'm not telling everyone to, and I quote you here "shut the hell up" or calling you and people like you "whiny bitches" because, you know, that's generally what a whiner does, like you whining over people discussing in disagreement with the electoral colleges.

Of course Obama did not want to change it, he won through a similar situation once.
However, you continue showing how uninformed you are, Trump actually did say he was against the electoral colleges. At the last election, when Obama won:
https://storify.com/cmgnationalnews/...ut-the-elector
He only changed his opinion now because he won. So, guess what, at least one of the three did care... until it worked in his favor.
And even before winning, he never said he agrees with the rules, asked if he'd try to contest the results if he lost he said he'll keep everyone in suspense:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7372066.html

Oh, and Hillary actually asked for a recount in certain swing states. So, I guess she doesn't agree on how things went either.

And this is not about current elections, but about further ones. So, "whining" now might change stuff for the future.

And my last point, I won't start a movement to change the way the USA presidential election works because I'm not a US citizen. My country works on a popular vote, as it should. And it does so after the people made a revolution in 1989.

Last but not least, I will agree with you on one point, that I'm wasting my time with you. By putting those 3 in your frontline when 1 fully contested the electoral colleges a few years back and one is contesting the vote now, you showed how ignorant you are.
But, alas, I had already written half of my reply when I realized that so I thought to finish it. If you read it, I'm glad to have wasted your time too

[Deleted]

why should it change and we allow cali and nyc to decide every election?

It should change, in some fashion, to prevent voter disenfranchisement and consequently increase turnout, leading to political mobility and more representative results.

[Deleted]

why should it change and we allow cali and nyc to decide every election?

Because the vote of every human being should be equal. Because despite the USA being split into states, it's not a real federation. Californians don't see themselves as Californians first and americans second. You're all americans and you all want what's best for the USA, in your view.
Also, because while you might not like the Democrat votes from those states, it would also encourage Republicans from those states to vote, since now they have no reason to, as their votes are irrelevant.

But it's ok, if you believe that the vote of a person from a less populous state should count for less, why not apply this for other things?
There are less african american people in the USA, their vote should also count more than white people votes!
There are less men than women in the USA, their vote should also count more than women votes!
I mean, these categories seem disadvantages for being in the minority, right?

[Endus]

Also, I'm sure it's been covered already, but let me reiterate in case it hasn't been:

America is not now, nor has it ever been, nor was it ever intended to be a pure democracy. It's a democratic republic. So if something seems pretty un-democratic...yeah, no shit Sherlock. It's kind of supposed to be.

And literally nobody is making that argument. Thanks for playing.

[Fadeslol]

Don't know. Don't really care what others do. It doesn't make me a hypocrite.

- - - Updated - - -



You sure do say a bunch of a shit without any kind of source. You can read what the 3/5 compromise is. They weren't really hiding their agenda back then.

Since i have to do all the work for you instead of going and research for yourself.

1) https://www.monticello.org/site/plan...on-and-slavery
2) Declaration of Independence
3) I have read 3/5 compromise

Ik about the slavery in America, i looked into it. It was wrong but now its fixed which is should be. Don't sit there and say the whole American system is designed around slavery, it's not.

- - - Updated - - -

Because the vote of every human being should be equal. Because despite the USA being split into states, it's not a real federation. Californians don't see themselves as Californians first and americans second. You're all americans and you all want what's best for the USA, in your view.
Also, because while you might not like the Democrat votes from those states, it would also encourage Republicans from those states to vote, since now they have no reason to, as their votes are irrelevant.

But it's ok, if you believe that the vote of a person from a less populous state should count for less, why not apply this for other things?
There are less african american people in the USA, their vote should also count more than white people votes!
There are less men than women in the USA, their vote should also count more than women votes!
I mean, these categories seem disadvantages for being in the minority, right?

Simple we don't want Majority overruling the Minority, especially from certain states like cali.

[Deleted]

Simple we don't want Majority overruling the Minority, especially from certain states like cali.

????

The whole point of any election is that the candidate or party with the plurality or majority gets elected, or primary representation. So you want an electoral system where the runner up wins all the time?

[Fadeslol]

????

So you want an electoral system where the runner up wins all the time?

Runner up doesn't win all the time. Simple, u can't go to 2 states, you have to have all the states in play.

[MasterOfNone]

Don't know. Don't really care what others do. It doesn't make me a hypocrite.

- - - Updated - - -



You sure do say a bunch of a shit without any kind of source. You can read what the 3/5 compromise is. They weren't really hiding their agenda back then.

no, not necessarily make YOU a hypocrite, but several others, indeed.

[socanyou]

Seeing as how the popular vote doesn't count for anything and electoral votes is what wins someone the presidency, what's the point of anyone voting? What's the point of trying to recount votes when it doesn't matter how many votes someone got?

Why do you even need to go vote at all when it's already decided by others you have no control over? Am I missing something?

I think what this thread proves is that we should stop letting people vote if they don't even understand the electoral college.

[Deleted]

Runner up doesn't win all the time. Simple, u can't go to 2 states, you have to have all the states in play.

That's not what you said. You said that you don't want the majority to overrule the minority - as if the ideal situation is that which suppresses the majority voice.

[Fadeslol]

You linked a source about Jefferson being against slavery, not what I was asking for.

You can deny it all you want but the electoral college was created to help slave states and to protect slavery.

So, you want the minority to overrule the majority? How does that make sense?

1) I'm sorry i thought u asked for Thomas Jefferson being against slavery, which were you looking for?
2) No it wasn't, it's so a mob of majority can't ruin the constitution, or bill of rights. Everything we have, was slavery part of that yes but that wasnt the main reason.

3) Yes we want to limit the powers, i don't want people from California taking away my 2nd amendment rights because they don't understand why its there. That's why everything has to have limited power. Simple; We don't want Mobs of Majority Infringing on the rights of the Minority

[Klingers]

I kind of understand how with the American system you can feel pretty disenfranchised. If you're a blue voter in a red state or a red voter in a blue state you're vote is basically worthless.

A much fairer model still fitting within the American Electoral College system would be proportional representation. i.e. if Democrat voters in Texas get over a certain threshold percentage of votes, however small, they should get that percentage of Texas delegates. Same goes for Republicans in California.