[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]


File: 1604629349829.png (198.86 KB, 1513x983, 1513:983, US_counties_by_population_….png) ImgOps Google

Every election at least one person will bring up the idea of Democracy.  America, of course, is not a Democracy, it's a Republic.  There were legacy reasons for America not electing the President directly -- difficulty of tabulating a popular vote, belief that electors or state legislatures should use discretion, compromises between large and small states required to form the union, but now it seems that the most relevant remaining argument is that land surrounding a person should have sway in elections, or put another way rural areas should not be held hostage to population centers.  Is this a good political argument for Republican Presidential elections?  Is there a better one I'm missing?  Or do you favor Democracy instead?


Simple popular vote favors urban centers and inevitably results in abuse to those not in the centers, especially those who produce goods outside them.
A true democracy inevitably necessitates arms against your own nation, as inevitably the abused seek to leave.
America was set up intending to avoid this, without giving entire control to either group.
Whether or not it holds up today is a matter of perspective. Personally, the greatest issues I see are at state level, not federal.
Issues with federal are more about security and faith in that election, as I see it.
Ideally, it should be placed in the hands of neutral 3rd party actors. But that is difficult for nations and ideologies to accomplish


>Should land have a vote?
No.  How would land even indicate who it votes for?

In regards to the Electoral College: Each state is a sovereign, and the federal government should represent the states as well as the people.  (In this regard, the 17th Amendment was a mistake.)  And there are good reasons for letting the several states run their elections.  This year is a clear example, with the head of the federal executive branch throwing a temper tantrum because he lost.  Would you like him to be charge in running the election throughout the entire country?  Plus, the states can try different things, and over time the best ideas will be more broadly adopted.

Also, arguably the biggest effect of the Electoral College isn't rural vs urban, it's competitive states vs solid-red/solid-blue states.  


It's a tough question without an easy answer.  It's important that rural minorities aren't ignored in favor of the urban majority, but it's also not very utilitarian for us to be ruled by a minority.

I think it might be sufficient that they're represented in the house and senate, while the single slot position of the President be left to the popular vote at large.


>A true democracy inevitably necessitates arms against your own nation, as inevitably the abused seek to leave.

A democracy is unjust and requires overthrow because it oppresses rural folk?  (I feel like I'm overstating that somehow.)

>How would land even indicate who it votes for?
By those associated with the land.  Some say of democracy: one person, on vote.  You might create a government with one acre, one vote.  The vote would actually have to be made by those associated with that acre, of course.

>Each state is a sovereign
I've always been a bit fuzzy on that word.  Up until the Civil War it might have been permissible for states to reject federal authority altogether.

>Would you like him to be charge in running the election throughout the entire country?

Administration of elections needn't be federal for a democratic vote for President.  Probably, though, people would say a standard would make sense, through, yes.  Perhaps you are right in the association.

>competitive states vs solid-red/solid-blue states

OK.  Good and bad, you could say.  In a state established red or blue, a person's vote probably doesn't matter.  In competitive states, votes matter much more.  So it's a weird bias -- but I take it you think it's for the best.

>not very utilitarian for us to be ruled by a minority
Right...undemocratic.  You seem to be the minority, in this case, that feels perhaps a democratic election of President would be OK.


>I've always been a bit fuzzy on that word.
At its core, it means that a state is not a subsidiary of the federal government, but rather has its own independent source of authority.  In terms of concrete consequences, there is the anti-commandeering doctrine (Printz v US), state sovereign immunity, and the "dual sovereignty" doctrine in regards to the double jeopardy clause.

>but I take it you think it's for the best.
No, my posting that regard was purely descriptive, not normative; I didn't state an opinion one way or the other.  I suppose one advantage to the existing system is that, theoretically at least, states with roughly equal splits have more motivation for people to compromise and learn to live together, whereas in lopsided states, one side can steamroll the other.  A disadvantage is that the system is unstable in the sense that a minor perturbation can produce a significantly changed outcome.


The idea that abolishing the electoral college for direct popular vote necessarily oppresses rural populations is nonsense.

It treats the executive branch as if it were the legislative branch. And it unjustly assumes rural and urban regions as voting monoliths. The Electoral college disenfranchises the monority votes within states anyway. I mean, it's not like states are monolithically blue or red. The Electoral college disenfrachises voters even in big urban states.


You don't have to ideologically agree to not care about problems someone else far away from you faces.



You don't have to ideologically disagree to not care either. People outside your state are not a monolith and plenty of people in every state are hypocrites.

Either way, it's irrelevant so long as the Electoral college disenfranchises the minority of voters within each state.


I'm sure, but that wasn't my point.
My point is, it is a universal fact of human nature that we think of our own problems first.



Seems like an argument against the idea that any urban center is a monolith that votes in favor of cities over rural areas.


Why is this always presented as a zero sum game between populous regions and rural regions? We can, in fact, take care of all citizens at once. The candidate who will win in a national popular vote scenario is the one who appeals to everyone, because they will have an edge over the person who appeals to only the population centers. The current system pits Americans against Americans when we can all get care proportional to our needs if we do a popular vote.


Yes but since its stolen we wont like what it votes for.


Zero sum games create the perception that value has to be stolen.

Probly to legitimize its theft from you, its creator.  Any zero sum game is proof of some scheme to steal something from someone so keep yer eyes peeled


>its own independent source of authority
Are all entities sovereign, in that all have some kind of authority, at least the authority to exist?  That is, am I a sovereign because I can pick which shirt to put on?

>purely descriptive
I see.

True, to allow population density to matter generally, the system would have to be redone with vote weighting for within states as well.

Hello Deep Yak.  I don't quite understand.  States can not steal generally, I don't think.  Probably you mean the conquest of native populations by Europeans.


All land is stolen by its nature.


Land may not be legitimately owned as property?  That seems to be an uncommon view, although I suppose it is somewhat affirmed by the existence of some public land.  I doubt I quite understand, though.


I think that they mean that most developed nations were build on conquest/colonization, and thus was originally stolen from the indigenous peoples of that land. This is certainly true of much of North America, and many of the UK's territories.


I think it is true that if you traced the lineage of title (or the idea of ownership or tribal/clan occupation before formal titles) of any given acre of land, excepting remote wastelands, you would find at least one transfer of ownership due to armed conquest or dominating coercion.  If titles must be clean from the first claim to the last, most ownership is problematic.

[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]