@9F8JVHH 7mos7MO
Top Disagreement
Without the EC voting for the President will be a pure democracy, and pure democracies usually fail. One can almost predict that big cities will gain all the power and it will be used to enhance the lives of those who reside there, and the nations rural areas (which are also very important) will decline.
Athenian democracy addresses the needs of the people better than a representative democracy could. The standing electoral system in America contradicts my beliefs.
@JudicialAlexandra7mos7MO
I remember visiting Athens a few years ago and being fascinated by the concept of Athenian democracy, where every citizen had a direct say in decision-making. It's interesting to think about how such a system might impact the U.S. today. But we also have to consider the challenge of scaling direct democracy in a country as large and diverse as ours. Do you think there could be a way to adapt Athenian democracy to fit the modern U.S.?
@9FDQ9977mos7MO
Rural areas that supposedly benefit from the EC do not actually benefit from it, and quality of life in rural communities—alongside social mobility—is actually in decline. Abolishing the EC and moving towards a multi-party system in Congress would allow farmers and rural workers to better advocate for their needs, something the current politicized two-party systems brushes aside.
@9F8DTG6Republican7mos7MO
Our founders designed it as a balance for the popular vote and they did all with much deliberation, prayer and purpose. We still need that balance.
@9CJ6CB67mos7MO
Of the popular vote disagrees with the election and the EC is the determining factor, it’s not democratic.
@9F6WFSQ8mos8MO
Top Agreement
As recent as the 2016 election, the EC went against the majority vote and allowed Trump to become president. About 1/3-1/2 of Us citizens don't vote which I think is because they believe their vote doesn't matter.
@9GZB8LM5mos5MO
a lot of people don't belive this because the democrats rig the election just like they did to get Biden in office.
@9GZ9W485mos5MO
If someone is unhappy with their representation then they should be more educated on who they make their elected officials. If your state does not give you the representation you want, then move to a different one.
@9GMY3DQ 6mos6MO
The Electoral College as-is actively limits the ability for a third party to take hold. If no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes, then the election goes to the House of Representatives. As a result, Martin Van Buren helped push for a stable two-party system back in the 1800s as a way to mitigate the need for this back-up method to choose a victor. Without the Electoral College, the United States could move to another voting system that more actively encourages third party and independent engagement without the fear of an election in the House or playing "spoiler" in your specific swing state.
@9GN4G2P6mos6MO
I do not think that the Electoral College currently holds back third parties as it is unlikely they will get the votes anyway. still, I think if there ever was a third party that got some attention, it would most likely hold them back and I think overall the Electoral College is a very poorly thought out and unnecessary system.
@9F844BB8mos8MO
Electoral officials can override the popular vote of their state and completely jeopardize the statutes of American Democracy.
@97J4T591yr1Y
Understand politics before making decisions that effect everybody
So then smaller states with smaller populations just get no say so correct??? Cause that's the purpose of the electoral!!! All states (which actually means people in politics) are different sizes. Therefore smaller states less population versus bigger states with bigger population. If we went by popular vote because electoral college is gone then these smaller states would not be able to compete with bigger states. For example, lets say California has a population of 1.5 billion half those people (750,000,000) feel democratic while other half (750,000,000) feel republican. But Montana… Read more
@1andonlymikusGreen1yr1Y
It isn't that smaller states don't get a say, it's that the PEOPLE'S say is what matters, not the states'. The whole "bigger states/bigger cities will decide elections" is not true whatsoever. It doesn't even make sense when you read into it. The people in those cities and states are what matters. Changing to a popular vote system (including stuff like ranked voting, what Australia does) will lead to people actually feeling as if their vote matters. If politicians have issues with it, they just need to adopt more popular policies that align with the views of their voter base, ya know, the people who put you in charge and the ones that you're governing. Land shouldn't vote, people should.
@TruthHurts10111mos11MO
YOU DON'T CARE SQUAT ABOUT THE PEOPLE! All YOU CARE ABOUT IS MAINTAINING YOUR LEFTIST HOLD ON POWER TO USURP OUR LIBERTIES AND DESTROY OUR RIGHTS!
@itguru_ianConstitution11mos11MO
I understand your concern about protecting individual liberties and rights. A specific example that comes to mind is concerns about the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. Some people worry that a shift in power could lead to stricter gun control laws, impacting their rights. How do you think a popular vote system would affect the balance of power and the protection of our rights?
@TruthHurts10111mos11MO
It would make the cities infect the entire electoral system and destroy representation for farmers and small-town folks.
@9F24W728mos8MO
I do not want my right to be usurped as you were saying
@9F24W728mos8MO
I agree that my vote will actually be counted!
@VulcanMan6 1yr1Y
“So then smaller states with smaller populations just get no say”
No, it just means all people would get an equal say; under the electoral college, people in smaller states are given a larger "say" than people in larger states...which is blatantly anti-democratic. If some people have more of a say than others, then that's not democratic, that's just inflating the beliefs of a minority simply because they're in a minority. Everyone should have the same, equal vote, and if that means a minority belief is unpopular...then that's just how majoritarianism works. Plus, smaller states/towns always have their own local elections anyways, so I don't even understand the issue? If the majority of the country votes for Party A, then that's obviously who should lead nationally, but if your small state/town votes majority Party B, then your state/town should be lead by Party B...
@TruthHurts10111mos11MO
I am strongly Anti-Democratic and darn proud of it because I AM A REPUBLICAN NOT A DEMOCRAT!
@VulcanMan6 11mos11MO
I can't tell if you're joking or not, but the political party names are not actually representative of being pro-/anti-democracy.
More importantly, why are you strongly against democratic decision-making? So that implies that you believe that not everyone should be allowed to vote, right?
@TruthHurts10111mos11MO
Absolutely. So Democracy is majority tyranny. What I believe in is a Republic, which our nation, by the way, actually is -- and that means that consent of the governed is retained while individual rights, being uninfringable and inalienable, cannot be voted away by mob rule. Actually the party names are representative of being pro/anti-democracy. Republicans were founded to abolish slavery because they knew that just because the voters said slavery was right didn't make it legal. Democrats were founded to protect the institution of slavery and racism because that's what the majority wanted. So yes the parties are an anti/pro democratic system.
The historical activity of users engaging with this answer.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
