America's flawed democracy

No, it's an anachronism that never should have been passed in the first place. The only thing it enhances is the tendency of backward areas to support despotism and the only thing it checks is the natural ability of a free electorate to detect and dismiss mountebanks and frauds

 

i'll confess I'm not so up to skinny on how the Democratic nomination works. My understanding was that he didn't fit in with the party line so was excluded. Are you suggesting that an unfetted percentage popularity contest would have him nominated? Just remind you the same process, I assume, that allowed Trump ( outsider) to beat Republican contenders denied Sanders his place. Perhaps Sanders didn't quite have enough support?

 

You're not wrong, they just did the very thing you're talking about. Fortunately, the American people have just slapped them down too, now comes the retribution which should be judicious rather than vindictive. The idea is to show some people the error of their ways, not to punish well-meaning individuals who were trying to improve things.

 

If Bernie had won Trump would now be entering his second term and Democracy in the USA would be pretty much over. Seeing how Trump is acting when he lost is there anyone who's going to dispute he would be extremely authoritarian if he won?

 

It's challenging. As a rough metaphor for the wider population, on PF I try and not categorise and label, separate the administration from its supporters - with limited success. I suspect the other side is 'trying' but they hardly have a reputation for tolerance either.

On an optimistic note we are still communicating, for now.

 

The electoral college doesn't exist because the technology for a popular vote is too cumbersome.

People don't elect presidents, states do.

 

As usual, we disagree.

 

Interesting. Bernie's a very controversial figure within the left it seems.

 

How considerate! I trust they have something more efficacious and humane than Zyklon-b when doling out their just "retribution". But then it's cheap and certainly shows people the "error" of their ways. "Retribution"? REALLY???

 

We have been a single sovereign state since at least the ACW and probably before. The States were never meant to be sovereign, they have no borders they can protect from the other states and can charge no tariffs to them. They have no coinage or currency and can make no foreign policy of their own.

Quick and without looking, on your honor who is your State's lieutenant governor? Do you in fact even HAVE one?

I see myself as a citizen of the USA and a resident of my state. I would die for my country if necessary as that is fitting and proper but if anyone was to suggest I should die for my State I would regard them as insane

 

You clearly don't understand that the basis of the States as part of the United States.

We aren't "America" we are the "United States of America". There is a difference.

 

You've heard wrong.

People simply did not vote for Bernie in 2016 or 2020 in nearly the numbers that voted for Clinton or Biden. There is no way that Obama would involve himself in the primary process. That "talking to" did not happen.

Clinton got more votes than Sanders in the 2016 primary and won that nomination fair and square. Biden got more votes than Sanders in the 2020 primary and won that nomination fair and square.

No one cheated Bernie out of the running either time. Like I said, really sick of hearing that. What you seem to have been reading or hearing was all based on angry rhetoric and conspiracy nonsense.

 

The Constitution has worked just like it is suppose too concerning the Electoral College. Pretty sure all the dancing snowflakes on the two coasts think that the real America thinks like them but it doesn't. The misnomer is that Democrats keep saying the "majority of Americans". 11 to 30 million illegals are Not America. Thousands of stolen votes are not America. So what would happen if just the majority ruled.

1. The Supreme Court would be packed with just liberal judges until the Conservatives became the majority and then it would reverse.

2. If the liberals become the majority they could make Washington D. C. and Puerto Rico a state to give themselves 4 more Democrat Senators.

3. They would ban "right to work" states and make unionism mandatory.

4. They would continue to pass more laws that make certain speech a felony. They are already reading social media and using their power to make people lose their jobs.

5. They will shut down whole industries in the name of Green Energy.

6. The only education that will be supported will be Federal state-run and the curriculum government approved.

7. All health Care will doled out by the government.

8. All taxes will be increased to support their platform.

9. Abortion will be government paid for all who request it.

10. Mail in voting will become the law of the land. No verification will be required.

 

OK I am afraid I do not know enough about your system to know exactly what it was. (The BBC seemed to think it was the Coronavirus lockdown that finished him ) but I believe what you are talking about is the 'Democratic Machine' as in

(link below)

You are definately going to have to supply something other than your opinion to get me to believe that one. I can't get onto the New York Times but

https://nypost.com/2020/04/14/obama-reportedly-convinced-bernie-sanders-to-drop-out-of-primary/

I remember in the beginning seeing people pointing out that when Biden for instance got so many votes he got more of the 'Democratic Machine' votes than Sanders did for the same number so however it was I do not think it was as 'democratic' as you appear to be wanting to say.

There is something though I want to talk about from your previous post

The FACT of the matter is that Bernie at best was offering something a little nearer Social Democracy and the reality is that polls say that is what the majority of people of the United States want. Given that there clearly is something going seriously wrong. Part of that may come from him himself and part of that may well come from your media calling him a socialist and so on which I hear most Americans find very frightening.

There is no question that Sanders let a lot of people down - whether that was by not confronting Biden as he should or for giving up at the point he did which allowed Biden to get away with the reality of his politics which are as right wing as most Republicans without the Trump effect - put well here

https://socialistaction.org/2020/03/24/the-demise-of-bernie-sanders/

Your belief that Sanders is far left is ridiculous. If he is who the US media and from that the people of the US believe is 'far left' the US must be out of the charts as how right it is. That ironically is what got Trump in and that will get another and possibly more right 'Tump' in if the Democratic Party does not change significantly which apart from words during the election seems very unlikely. You know what they say a country gets the Government it deserves. The US has a choice Far right and Far Right Corporate Power rules - the very thing it was observed during WW2 led to fascism. That is your current position. What we do know is that that Corporate Power as shown through the media will do absolutely everything it can to destroy any genuine left wing candidate. That was certainly the case in the UK and it certainly is the case that no left wing candidate has been allowed to stand in the US and that was why I mentioned this to Melb-Muser who believed if parties had 50% of the time it would be democracy. No it would not because they both stand for the same thing.

 

Lt. Gov. Janice and can't remember her last name.

And yes, they do have borders. And there is no need to protect them from other states because we are united under common goals of self defense and mutual trade. They even have their own defensive forces. They also have their own sovereign governments. Which can ignore the federal government if they so wish. And one of the Congresses jobs is to resolve trade disputes between the States. And the Constitution supports the fact that the States are separate.

 

How exactly are you going to make stonewalling Congress illegal? Why not just abolish the Presidential veto then?

 

Retribution consists in being voted out, nothing more. No poison is necessary and crematoria are FAR too polluting

Lines on a map, nothing more
If AZ goes to war with Mexico I would be conscripted, and go willingly
National Guards defend those States from their own people.
Those governments aren't sovereign, the Constitution overrides their laws.
They can only ignore the Feds in some things, so much and so far. "Sovereign" means that nothing and no one tells you what to do.

The States are no more sovereign than any other province, and that is what they are.

 

States elect the president, not people. States also used to appoint senators.
Electing a president by popular vote will tend to produce a heavily divided, pretty much dysfunctional government. They wouldn’t be able to appoint judges and numerous government positions.
So, unless someone wants to convert the US into a centralized republic and eliminate the senate, it makes little sense to have a president elected by popular vote.

 

A reasonable position. My preference is to take power from central government and give it to the states. The reason is that states have competition in the form of other states while the federal government has none. If you don't like the way your state does things you can move to another state. With federal government you are stuck.

There has been some movement of population from high tax areas like New York and New Jersey to low tax states like Florida and Texas recently as an example. Competition between states provides the same benefits to society as competition in business. It provides additional freedom and choice.

Federal government should handle the things the states can't do such as maintain a stable currency, maintain a military and deal with other countries as you mentioned above. Just a different way to look at things.

 

You forget that the States only follow the Constitution by agreement only. They do not have to.

And the Constitution recognizes States rights. IE: sovereignty.

Your giving perfect examples of a failed civics lessons....if you even had them.

 

Right, sure, they can secede if they don't agree, right?

The Constitution does recognize some State's rights but if States were "sovereign" it wouldn't have to. The whole idea of sovereign means it doesn't MATTER who recognizes anything, you do it anyway.
Think of an organizational chart, now think of an entity where the square just above it has a box saying "Nothing and No One" THAT entity is a sovereign thing.

You need to get a real political science textbook and stop listening to Rush for your Civics knowledge

 

You are wrong.
The US is a federation, not unitary country. Each US state has a lot more authority than a typical province in another country. Most of the laws that affect your everyday life are passed on state level, not federal. Also, each state has broad authority - they can regulate speed limit, legalize drugs, even legalize murder if they want to. In the original, state governments used to appoint senators and electors to vote for a president. Any state can even turn into a dictatorship and abolish elections altogether and still be part of this union - the only thing that the feds can do about it is to strip that states House Reps of their votes.
So, no, state borders are not just lines on a map.

 

Once shown, how do you get them to accept the error? The board is replete with examples of Trumpette's refusing to change their view on an issue even after being presented with irrefutable evidence their original position is not based in fact.

 

Any form of government has its flaws but I don't think the EC is one of them. In a country that has an even distribution of people a pure popular vote would work. But in a large country with an uneven population a pure popular vote would be a form of tyranny. Folks in Wyoming need to be represented also because their issues should not be governed by big city politicians. A Presidential campaign could be held in New York and California only and everyone else would just have to take it. We have a house for the majority. It is called the House of Representatives. We have a Chamber for the States. It is called the Senate Chamber. We also have a Judicial branch headed by the Supreme Court to solve issues of U.S.law. My issue is corruption within the system. I like the way the system works. But I usually hate my choices.

 

There were arguably some good reasons why the system was established as it is in 1804.

Now, the popular vote being more and more different than the EC vote undoubtedly poses a problem, if not so much right now, at least at the not too distant future. Refusing to acknowedge the problem is not a reasonnable attitude, imho.

One can argue that the current system where the states choose the president make the USA look more like a confederation than a country, and that was perhaps the original idea. That concept would completely disappear in case of a switch in favor of popular vote, which seems more democratic.

We must also recognize that all election system have their weaknesses; e.g. the elections for the members of the house of parliament in UK, with the "first past the post" system that provides that, in a given constituancy, the person elected is the one that gets the most votes in that constituancy, means that all votes in favor of the other candidates are lost. If you transpose that on the national level, this can be considered as completely un-democratic.

So, what is the solution for the US?

The concept of the decision being made by the states i.s.o. by the people would, imho, be more acceptable if the contrast with the people vote would be less obvious and, in a way, a bit disturbing. So, why not try and adapt the composition of the EC in order to
reach a more democratically representative result?