Confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court

[Endus]

You do realize that the that they didn't setup a direct democracy because they didn't want to. The United States. The name kind of says it all. People vote in their state for their state's votes. The States elect the president, not the people. A democracy can be as tyrannical as a monarchy. The only difference is who can impose their will. That is why the US is a constitutional republic.

A constitutional republic is just as prone to tyranny as any other such system. The American republic was modeled after the Roman Republic, which not only regularly produced tyrants, but also produced the Roman Empire.

The stated reasons the Founding Fathers were largely opposed to more direct forms of democracy had to do with their desire to ensure that their oligarchy of white landowning men could retain control of the direction of the nation, rather than letting the plebes weigh in. It was explicitly to defend their particular flavor of tyranny that they instituted systems like the Electoral College, to overrule the popular vote whenever they deemed it against the interests of that oligarchy.

You say they enjoy disproportionate electoral power. They say they like having at least some voice in it.

And only the first of those is a valid statement.

They already have outsize influence despite their undersized electorate through the Senate. And they still get to vote in the presidential election. So the claim that they just want "some voice" is a lie. They have a voice. They have always had a voice. They want more say than others, and to devalue the votes of those they disagree with. To manipulate the outcome of the election in their favor, in short.

I thought we believed in making sure that the minority still had their say? You know, protecting the minority against being run over and controlled by the majority.

Oh, stuff it up your pants. That's a dishonest false equivalence and you know it. You can't possibly think this was a justifiable counter argument.

[Xeones]

Then when the Republican's take it and do the same thing again? Where does it end? Every 4 or 6 years the other side gains power and just rigs the system again for them? You think that is the right way for the government to work? When I can't win by the rules, I change them, then put them back after I win. You don't expect the other side to do the same thing?

This is ridiculous. Republicans keep attacking democracy and our institutions of state, they grasp power for the sake of power and it's on democrats to simply give harsh words and stand aside and watch our nation decline time and time again? It's good for Republicans to fight tooth and nail for the people they choose to represent but Democrats should never stand up for their constituents?

No enough is enough. McConnel has gone too far, democrats have to use the casus belli that has been given to them so long as the voters give them the power. If they can't stop the republicans from continuing their assaults on democracy then it's over anyways since we are doomed to fail as a nation sooner or later. Appeasement failed in WW2 why would anyone think it would work now? Appeasement in the face of authoritarians is never going to succeed.

[Zan15]

Then when the Republican's take it and do the same thing again? Where does it end? Every 4 or 6 years the other side gains power and just rigs the system again for them? You think that is the right way for the government to work? When I can't win by the rules, I change them, then put them back after I win. You don't expect the other side to do the same thing?

would require that republicans get 60 seats, which lets face it neither party is going to hit anytime soon.

and you have it half assed backwards, its fixing the abuse and putting things back to normal...then locking it back up so it can't be unfucked again.

[JustinJgh]

I've never been left or right.

But Trump needs to be investigated for treason.

Every single one of his supporters who have educated themselves on what he was doing and is still okay with it, also need to be driven from society with extreme violent prejudice.

I'm sorry but this is a stain on American history. I never thought I would see the day.

[Felya]

It amazes me that people can justify anything as long as their side comes out on top. It's always the other sides fault. If they follow your plan then the government is over. There will be no rules. In the end everyone will lose.

It amazes me, that through my whole life, GOP and conservatives have beat the drum of smaller government... until Trump. I don’t understand how in less than 4 years, we went from small government and don’t tread on me, to the voice of the people being irrelevant through democracy and use arguments like “government is over”.

What about Trump that has made conservatives give up what seemed like a critical view for their ideology?

[omerome]

It amazes me, that through my whole life, GOP and conservatives have beat the drum of smaller government... until Trump. I don’t understand how in less than 4 years, we went from small government and don’t tread on me, to the voice of the people being irrelevant through democracy and use arguments like “government is over”.

What about Trump that has made conservatives give up what seemed like a critical view for their ideology?

The path to power. It was not "small government" to these people. It was about control. Telling others what to do and how to live - while bending the knee to their donors.

[Felya]

They need 3/4ths of the states to pass the change. That's not going to happen for a long long long time.

Why? Why would the remaining 46 states, who are not swing states, not want their votes to be worth more? GOP keeps acting like electoral college gives smaller states more power, but that’s not the case. Florida is not a small state and there are a handful of states that choose the president, leaving those small states with their votes meaning less, just like the big states.

See... This division Trump and GOP use to hold power, is a figment of their imagination, used to hide their bullshit. You think places like Vermont, Main, Oregon and Washington are going to agree that smaller states have more power with EC? No, this is a fabrication, because GOP doesn’t have policy, other than divisions... Barret nominated and they go on a 2 week vacation, as Covid is ratfucking the country and they already bailed out corporations? As long as the topic is division, none of you care... what did Trump claim during the debates? That democrats with their socialism, will take your social security? So scary those democrats... while Trump is actively defunding social security... If not division to hide impropriety, what is this?

- - - Updated - - -

The path to power. It was not "small government" to these people. It was about control. Telling others what to do and how to live - while bending the knee to their donors.

Totally, I’ve been posting the Gadsden flag to conservatives making these arguments for years, if not decades. It’s just never been so obvious and a part of their rhetoric.

When has there been a president, GOP or otherwise, deny aid to the whole country, because he didn’t want to help states he believes are struggling the most? Barret nominated and they are done... months of blaming democrats, Trump sending mixed signals, they got the SCOTUS and went home... the shit about trying to get a better deal from Palosi, all lies... they obviously have no intention to help American people during one of the worst pandemics in a century.

[Endus]

It amazes me, that through my whole life, GOP and conservatives have beat the drum of smaller government... until Trump. I don’t understand how in less than 4 years, we went from small government and don’t tread on me, to the voice of the people being irrelevant through democracy and use arguments like “government is over”.

What about Trump that has made conservatives give up what seemed like a critical view for their ideology?

The simple answer is that it's not something they ever really believed in. It was a convenient lie, to cover up their hostility towards basic social support systems and the taxes on the upper 5% that would pay for those services. It's always been about expanding government oppression of the poor and minorities, and empowering the wealthy. Those aren't good selling points to gullible idiots who haven't already bought in, though, so they use "small government!" as a bullshit cover-up for their actual views.

Republicans believe in small government the same way Kim Kong Un and the rest of the Kims before him believe in democracy.

[Zeth Hawkins]

You do realize that the that they didn't setup a direct democracy because they didn't want to. The United States. The name kind of says it all. People vote in their state for their state's votes. The States elect the president, not the people. A democracy can be as tyrannical as a monarchy. The only difference is who can impose their will. That is why the US is a constitutional republic.

As to removing the EC, it's basically a dead issue. There is no way that the 38 states would agree to it. You have too many of those small states that would block it. They need 3/4ths of the states to pass the change. That's not going to happen for a long long long time.

You say they enjoy disproportionate electoral power. They say they like having at least some voice in it. I thought we believed in making sure that the minority still had their say? You know, protecting the minority against being run over and controlled by the majority.

The only issue I have found with the electoral college is really more of an issue with how states are run. The governors and other leadership appeal and cater to one side of the aisle, so people from that side move in, and the other side moves away. Every state could be a swing state if the leadership tried to even out the ideological demographics.

[Edge-]

The only issue I have found with the electoral college is really more of an issue with how states are run. The governors and other leadership appeal and cater to one side of the aisle, so people from that side move in, and the other side moves away. Every state could be a swing state if the leadership tried to even out the ideological demographics.

Wait...state governors are somehow supposed to politically engineer their populaces to strive for some kind of ideological equality amongst residents?

When has that ever happened? Does that even seen remotely practical to you? Why would a state with majority Republicans, and Republican control of the state government, enact legislation to appeal to Democrats? And vice versa?

No, the EC is flawed for plenty of other reasons. Including, most importantly, that it devalues votes in more populace states.

[alexw]

It amazes me, that through my whole life, GOP and conservatives have beat the drum of smaller government... until Trump. I don’t understand how in less than 4 years, we went from small government and don’t tread on me, to the voice of the people being irrelevant through democracy and use arguments like “government is over”.

What about Trump that has made conservatives give up what seemed like a critical view for their ideology?

They didn't give it up. They never had it in the first place.

The only thing they care about is power and their side winning.

The excuse of caring about smaller government exists only for them to use to attack democrats and the people they hate (the poor, minorities, social liberals, millenials, etc).

[Machismo]

It amazes me, that through my whole life, GOP and conservatives have beat the drum of smaller government... until Trump. I don’t understand how in less than 4 years, we went from small government and don’t tread on me, to the voice of the people being irrelevant through democracy and use arguments like “government is over”.

What about Trump that has made conservatives give up what seemed like a critical view for their ideology?

The GOP stopped being about small government a long time ago... they just stopped lying about it so much. The GOP has wanted more government than the Democrats for about 20 years now.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. Every Tea Party member is a fucking liar. They tried to make it anout smaller government, when it was really anout their own fucking racism.

Thats what the GOP doesn't understand, they have ceded both the financial and moral high ground for generations. I will make sure my kids know they are the party of fiscal irresponsibility, religious bigotry, and white supremacy. My kids will know their grandmother is racist, homophobic trash. They will know that she laughed at the idea of children dying while crossing the border. They will know that she doesn't give a shit about victims of sexual assault. I will make sure they know that is the platform of the GOP.

[Xeones]

The GOP stopped being about small government a long time ago... they just stopped lying about it so much. The GOP has wanted more government than the Democrats for about 20 years now.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. Every Tea Party member is a fucking liar. They tried to make it anout smaller government, when it was really anout their own fucking racism.

Thats what the GOP doesn't understand, they have ceded both the financial and moral high ground for generations. I will make sure my kids know they are the party of fiscal irresponsibility, religious bigotry, and white supremacy. My kids will know their grandmother is racist, homophobic trash. They will know that she laughed at the idea of children dying while crossing the border. They will know that she doesn't give a shit about victims of sexual assault. I will make sure they know that is the platform of the GOP.

Eh the lack of small government talk is a Trump thing. Republicans are still talking about small government when facing democrats, they'll never drop that hypocritical line.

Also I'm pretty sure Justin Amash had something to say about finding out the Tea Party wasn't about what he thought it was when he decided to become an independent. I just can't remember where the article was, I do recall it being relatively interesting.

[Machismo]

Eh the lack of small government talk is a Trump thing. Republicans are still talking about small government when facing democrats, they'll never drop that hypocritical line.

Also I'm pretty sure Justin Amash had something to say about finding out the Tea Party wasn't about what he thought it was when he decided to become an independent. I just can't remember where the article was, I do recall it being relatively interesting.

I like Justin Amash a lot. The Tea Party and Freedom Caucus went full white supremacist and fascist, so he left. Amyone who even leans like ertarian, and supports Trump... is lying.

[SavoirFaire]

The stated reasons the Founding Fathers were largely opposed to more direct forms of democracy had to do with their desire to ensure that their oligarchy of white landowning men could retain control of the direction of the nation, rather than letting the plebes weigh in. It was explicitly to defend their particular flavor of tyranny that they instituted systems like the Electoral College, to overrule the popular vote whenever they deemed it against the interests of that oligarchy.

Isn’t that kind of what the American left wants? Listen to the people, but use a left leaning judge to stop it when it is deemed not agreeable.

California voted down gay marriage, so going by the will of the masses is ok, except when it isn’t. I’d suspect that eliminating the EC would work for an election cycle or two before the suppressed red votes in CA, NY, etc realize they have an equal vote and vastly outnumber suppressed blue votes in SC, GA, etc, and actually start voting, then it would be deemed a “failed experiment”.

If the country was mostly left, we wouldn’t constantly be getting center right Democrat’s since... Bill Clinton? To be clear I’m all for elimination of the EC for presidential elections. Barring that, nationally eliminating winner take all in each state and weigh it by population, with the rounding error going to the side that takes that state.

[shimerra]

You do realize that the that they didn't setup a direct democracy because they didn't want to. The United States. The name kind of says it all. People vote in their state for their state's votes. The States elect the president, not the people. A democracy can be as tyrannical as a monarchy. The only difference is who can impose their will. That is why the US is a constitutional republic.

As to removing the EC, it's basically a dead issue. There is no way that the 38 states would agree to it. You have too many of those small states that would block it. They need 3/4ths of the states to pass the change. That's not going to happen for a long long long time.

You say they enjoy disproportionate electoral power. They say they like having at least some voice in it. I thought we believed in making sure that the minority still had their say? You know, protecting the minority against being run over and controlled by the majority.

- - - Updated - - -

You do realize that in the Federalist papers James Madison explicitly wrote that if the EC were to function exactly as it does today it would be a perversion of the intent of the system and should be discarded? Admittedly he doesn't appear to have been a big fan of it from the outset but he explicitly advised that the way it functions today is a direct violation of the founders intent and a problem created by the vagueness of the constitution in determining how elector's are selected and vote. And he wasn't the only one who opposed it. In fact the early EC was quite a ridiculous mess and the founders including the lovely George Mason felt that the President would be chosen by the House 95% of the time after being narrowed down to the top 2-3.

The electoral system was not to give less populous states/the minority a say over the more populous states. It was done to give slaveholding states a leg up compared to non-slave holding states and even then wasn't considered the best way by the delegation to elect an executive. Just the best they could come up with to bribe the slave states. The right to vote was also much more restricted, and not considered to be important and state to state there could be pretty large disparities about who got to vote.

But to restate the EC and 3/5th's compromise were directly made to appease slaveholding states and wasn't considered even by the people who wrote it to be the best way to pick a president. This nonsense rural vs urban divide wasn't a separation that existed back then as pretty much everyone was rural back then or in a city size we'd consider to be rural today. It was done because thanks to slavery non-slave states tended to have a larger amount of white males who could vote and Slave/southern states didn't' like that. Had the slave states not been people owning shitheads and black people been able to vote it would've been a complete non-issue.

https://www.fairvote.org/why-james-m...-for-president

I've read the federalist papers myself but that is a pretty good run down of his, and other founder's opinion of the EC and many of them wanted to do away with it as early as the early 19th century.

Removing the EC is only a dead issue because red states, the minority, want to continue to be able to force their will on the majority. Why is that okay for you that a minority of voters control the life of the majority? And it flies directly against the founder's intent which was to create a system that could improve and update with the times. Not appease sycophants to dead people who only support socialist measures when it benefits them politically like Republicans are doing now subjugating the nation to minority rule.

And quite honestly we've already come up with a half dozen better way to achieve the desired intent of the system and not subject the will of the majority to be dominated by a minority. Ranked choice voting for one.

[Zeth Hawkins]

Wait...state governors are somehow supposed to politically engineer their populaces to strive for some kind of ideological equality amongst residents?

When has that ever happened? Does that even seen remotely practical to you? Why would a state with majority Republicans, and Republican control of the state government, enact legislation to appeal to Democrats? And vice versa?

No, the EC is flawed for plenty of other reasons. Including, most importantly, that it devalues votes in more populace states.

Every state should want to be a battleground state.
-Every resident's vote is crucial
-Influx of Campaign money every four years
-Extremism without a bubble is more difficult to grow
-More balanced legislature
-Population diffusion within and between states
-Travel infrastructure and related jobs receive boon from population diffusion
-Far more activity in local elections
-More attention paid to the geographical issues of inland states (40% of pop lives in coastal counties, and less than 10% of the land in the contiguous U.S.)

Total population does not devalue individual voting power, ideological homogeneity does.

Yes, I realize this will never happen.

[Felya]

Every state should want to be a battleground state.

They would be all equal without electoral college.

[Edge-]

Total population does not devalue individual voting power, ideological homogeneity does.

No, it doesn't. If CA was closer to a 50/50 split for votes between Republicans and Democrats, that would in no way, shape, or form alter the value of CA votes compared to vote in Iowa or Nebraska. Those votes would still be worth more in the EC per-person than votes in CA.

Yes, I realize this will never happen.

I mean, it's a great piece of fiction and all but it's not remotely practical in the slightest.

And it's a good reason why presidential elections should be done via popular vote, and why why there should be stricter campaign finance regulations. States shouldn't be relying on huge influxes of political money ever 4 years, that's nonsense.

- - - Updated - - -

They would be all equal without electoral college.

"But the big cities would be where they go and the heartland would be ignored!" I hear someone call.

Meanwhile, the "heartland" remains largely ignored as most aren't battleground states, so literally nothing would change. And those big cities remain important for fundraising already, so that would remain the same as well in terms of the focus put on them, just for different reasons.

[Felya]

"But the big cities would be where they go and the heartland would be ignored!" I hear someone call.

Arbitrary, they will go to the most populated city, state, neighborhoods, regions, schools, employers... the destination is irrelevant, the only thing that would mater, is reaching the most Americans. Which seems like a good idea...