US Politics thread

[AP0CALYPS3]

It's literally a mix of all of the above, literally a mix of all the "Does it's?" you said. So nice bait, but I don't see a reason we should define it as "You need to win most people/states/cities" when we can do a more all of the above approach.

Also, you brought up "how is it excusable if u directly elect your congressmen, but not the president?". It's because there is literally no reason to not directly elect them. They are representatives of a very specific population and area, not a giant land mass of 300 M people. Not directly electing them also serves no benefit to the country or the state. One of the reasons the EC is like it is, is because it benefits the states. Nobody is forcing States to have "winner take all" systems, it just benefits them more. Candidates have to campaign super hard because if they lose it all even if they are just slightly behind in a state.

Also I don't see anybody calling into question the existence of the Senate when it's not based on population and "what the majority of the country wants" either.

[Olafson]

But the point is that it doesn't benefit the states either.

[MaxLam]

I don't see any "failure" in this election. Democracy is not, and will never be the decision of the majority against the minority. It's much more than that. In many countries, people don't believe that a simple "majority" can be enough to make democratic decisions. Their systems are based on "consensus democracy". So there can be different democractic systems with different rules.

In the United States, the system was designed to allow a better representation of the states. If an American state was isolated from the rest of the country, where would be the democracy?

Clinton obtained the majority with a short margin. But nobody could say that Clinton would still have won with different rules, because the rules influence the campaign, and Trump, with a different campaign, might have won the popular vote.

[AP0CALYPS3]

But the point is that it doesn't benefit the states either.

But it does though. Candidates have to really campaign and make promises to the state. With a winner take all they are more likely to be like "hey, if I win, free Popsicles for the state of Florida" and stuff like that

[junedragon]

How does it 'work'? Does it elect the person most Americans want? No. Does it elect the person who wins a majority of the states? No. Does it force candidates to give attention to not just the great cities but to the entire country? No. Hell, no. The USA elects every single position in the legislative, executive or juridicary branches on every level of government by majority vote, except the presidency - then, suddenly, argueing that the most important position should also be elected by the majority becomes ridicious.

Please, enlighten me on how the Electoral College 'works', apart from that it happened to elect your favorite candidate this time.

I assume you've now changed your opinion and the EU Commission should be elected (by majority rule) too right? Its the executive branch of the EU in the same way the presidency is the executive branch of the US.

Actually, if you take a look at how the US system of governance was designed, you will see its functionally more similar to the EU than to an average (parliamentary or otherwise) democracy. Mainly due to the vast expanse of territory and overwhelming regional disparities.

House of Representatives = European Parliament

Senate = European Council with one rep. per state instead of head of state

Executive/Presidency = European Commission - Even featuring an indirectly elected President based on representation of individual states. Fascinating... - designed to focus on national interests whilst allowing individual states to conduct their own affairs otherwise

[StevenChilton]

The USA elects every single position in the legislative, executive or juridicary branches on every level of government by majority vote, except the presidency

That's not true-many members of the US judiciary are not elected. Not all states have judicial elections, plus all federal judges are appointed by the President. Even the ones that are elected may be under retention elections so it's not a traditional vote in that sense.

[Gluk the Walrus]

A lot of people disagree with the concept of the senate like myself. It used to be worse when senators were appointed by state legislators instead of a direct vote by the people of a state.

Look this whole notion of 'muh states rights' is just bullshit that has stuck around since the fucking 1600s and has little basis in whats actually best for a nation. What even defines a state? Its not cultural, take where i live for example, our culture is that of chicago, not of indiana. Is it political? No, again with myself NW indiana votes democrat while the rest of the state votes republican. Is it geographical? Sometimes but it doesnt explain the often random straight lines. The answer is pretty much that a couple people in congress 200 or so years ago decided what is and isnt a state.

Of course local communities should have autonomy from the fed but the concept of a 'state' within a nation is rather dumb. At least the eurofags have national borders based on geography, culture and politics. We have artificial borders.

[junedragon]

A lot of people disagree with the concept of the senate like myself. It used to be worse when senators were appointed by state legislators instead of a direct vote by the people of a state.

Look this whole notion of 'muh states rights' is just bullshit that has stuck around since the fucking 1600s and has little basis in whats actually best for a nation. What even defines a state? Its not cultural, take where i live for example, our culture is that of chicago, not of indiana. Is it political? No, again with myself NW indiana votes democrat while the rest of the state votes republican. Is it geographical? Sometimes but it doesnt explain the often random straight lines. The answer is pretty much that a couple people in congress 200 or so years ago decided what is and isnt a state.

Of course local communities should have autonomy from the fed but the concept of a 'state' within a nation is rather dumb. At least the eurofags have national borders based on geography, culture and politics. We have artificial borders.

federalism
Federalism is a system of government in which entities such as states or provinces share power with a national government. The United States government functions according to the principles of federalism.

And the borders between states are just as real as any European borders. Read a history book from the 1600's-1700's and you'd see that. The differences between the initial 13 states were especially profound. Trace them back to their foundings and then trace the origins of the next 37 and you will see.

[AP0CALYPS3]

A lot of people disagree with the concept of the senate like myself. It used to be worse when senators were appointed by state legislators instead of a direct vote by the people of a state.

Look this whole notion of 'muh states rights' is just bullshit that has stuck around since the fucking 1600s and has little basis in whats actually best for a nation. What even defines a state? Its not cultural, take where i live for example, our culture is that of chicago, not of indiana. Is it political? No, again with myself NW indiana votes democrat while the rest of the state votes republican. Is it geographical? Sometimes but it doesnt explain the often random straight lines. The answer is pretty much that a couple people in congress 200 or so years ago decided what is and isnt a state.

Of course local communities should have autonomy from the fed but the concept of a 'state' within a nation is rather dumb. At least the eurofags have national borders based on geography, culture and politics. We have artificial borders.

You pretend like everyone within a border is supposed to have the same culture and political outlook.

Like look at Europe. Do you honestly for a second believe that people within England, not just the UK, are all basically the same person?

By your logic all borders are artificial.

Also its funny that you deny any culture/reason that states are the way they are, but you talk about how it has history dating back to the 1600s.

I think that you are overlooking a lot of the reason why States are the way they are.

[BabyJesus]

Lets just be honest, Michigan is the only state that actually matters

[AP0CALYPS3]

Lets just be honest, Michigan is the only state that actually matters

Not even part of the OG 13. Georgia for the win you pleb.

[BabyJesus]

Lets just be honest, Michigan is the only state that actually matters

Not even part of the OG 13. Georgia for the win you pleb.

Michigan won a war against Ohio. How many wars did Georgia win?

[AP0CALYPS3]

Lets just be honest, Michigan is the only state that actually matters

Not even part of the OG 13. Georgia for the win you pleb.

Michigan won a war against Ohio. How many wars did Georgia win?

We rekt Florida

Literally our whole existence was to protect the other colonies from the Spainish in Florida

Also we won the Revolutionary War, if that counts

[BabyJesus]

Lets just be honest, Michigan is the only state that actually matters

Not even part of the OG 13. Georgia for the win you pleb.

Michigan won a war against Ohio. How many wars did Georgia win?

We rekt Florida

Literally our whole existence was to protect the other colonies from the Spainish in Florida

Georgia is weak

[AP0CALYPS3]

Honestly, don't make me make Russian deport you