Thank you. This is a BS take based in ignorance of all the factors involved in getting your legislation to the president’s desk. You have to vote every election all the way down the ballot or you can assume the same marginal success. (Edit autocorrect)
Yes you’re right that they are not perfectly democratic. Gerrymandering, the electoral college and representation in Congress being skewed towards land ownership all benefit Republicans. None of that will get changed through apathy. Nor will anything change pretending both sides are the same.
Look go vote, I do too, but voting is the apathetic reaction here. Its literally pressing a button to put someone you know is very compromised in charge. Its the other side of exactly the same coin, same policies and all. To that I would simply say get organizing.
And by god, the electoral college and gerrymandering combo alone put this system firmy in “not a democracy” territory. I mean they can essentially just choose the outcome of an election, makes all that theatre meaningless and I see right the fuck through it.
I get very wary anytime someone says both sides are the same. The same people who benefit from all the election trickery are the same ones who benefit from the two sides same coin disinformation campaign. It sows apathy. I’m not saying you’re wrong that Democrats are also corporate stooges just that their policies also help the little people while the other side of the coin exclusively helps the “haves”.
neither helps the little people, they just act like they do. the little people guy is currently financing a genocide of little people with little repercussion for him.
its like this all over the planet, the little people guy in my country is running the economy the same way the previous far right asshole did, and its currently trying to privatize prisions.
the real rulers calling the shots are the money class. those aint elected and are always helping themselves. if you don’t want to be apathetic, go after them. i’m suggesting this in addition to voting, btw
I don’t get this argument as a non American. Is the presidential a total vote regardless of geography? Most democratic countries you vote for local member. A lot of countries share the problem of progressives living close together and landsliding one electorate, but have no horses in other rural seats.
In Australia the standard story is the Liberal (conservative) party getting the most first preference votes, followed by Labor (centre left) then the Greens (progressive) coming 3rd but giving enough preferences for Labor to win.
Voting is based on electoral districts, which are areas mapped out every decade by state legislatures, and each district has electors which are given to a candidate who wins the vote in it.
The problem is that citizens of less populated states have more voting power due to the rules on how many electors a state gets.
Plus, conservatives often gerrymander – intentionally drawing the districts so ethnic minorities are divided, and most districts are designed to have a majority of Republican voters while all the areas with mostly Democratic voters are all put together into 1 or 2 districts. States like West Virginia also lower the amount of districts in the state as part of the strategy. The gerrymandering has lead to some pretty insane looking maps (North Carolina, Texas, Alabama, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Ohio)
Also electors may not actually vote for the candidate that wins the election in their district, which is technically illegal but also not really illegal and has happened quite a few times.
This accurately describes it. Further explanation:
Election of the President - Electoral College
Each citizen of Wyoming with a population of around half a million has somewhere around 3.7x the voting-weight as a Californian citizen. Why? Because each state’s electoral votes to the president is the # of Congressional delegates it has.
For Wyoming: 3 Electoral Votes for the President
2 US Senators (Every state gets 2 US Senators)
1 US House Representative (proportionate to their population)
5.19 electoral votes per million people.
For California: 54 Electoral Votes.
2 US Senators
52 US House Representatives
1.37 electoral votes per million people.
Thus, you get elections where Presidents don’t win the popular vote, and we expect our country to function…???
This may not seem like a big deal, but across 15-20 low-populated rust/bible-belt states, the effect adds up, leading to some of our worst Presidents in history being elected by a minority vote, including Bush Jr., in 2000, and Trump in 2016. In fact, Republicans have only won the Presidential popular vote ONCE in over 30+ years (which was Bush Jr.'s 2004 reelection when the country was wrapped around fear post-9/11 and Iraq invasion…).
The electoral college is an antiquated remnant of the slave era. In order to get America functioning properly again, it must go.
Election of US House of Representatives - Gerrymandering
Gerrymandering leads to mapping Congressional districts in ways that favors one party over another. This is probably the best layperson video to explain it. Traditionally this has been done far more nefariously and effectively by Republicans, who have also been in power at key moments, including the 2010 and 2020 Census.
Gerrymandering itself has no effect on US Presidential elections except for perhaps reducing peoples’ interest in showing up to the polls in the first place if their district is gerrymandered.
Election of US Senators
This (and Governor races—effectively the President of the state) is how the US Presidential election SHOULD happen at minimum. Each individual in the state gets an equal vote regardless of where they live, and the person who receives the most votes wins.
We can discuss getting rid of FPTP later, but baby-steps.
I am not American. I am also from a non federal (unitary) state.
While non federal systems far from perfectly democratic, federal systems are inherently less democratic because they add another entity to the election process than the people, federal states. This is actually most egregious in senates where every federal state gets the same amount of members for being a state regardless of how many people it represents. Non federal parliaments have a similar problem because you have way smaller number of electors to represent the people.
At least in US presidential elections states are awarded electors based on their populations. However some or all states (can’t really remember) have all their electors vote for the leader even if he won the state 51% to 49%. This acts like a filter and always changes the result as in the percentage of voters for candidate A is different than the percentage of electors for candidate A. It usually does not distort the result enough to flip the election but it happened in 2016.
It can theoretically happen in parliamentary systems as well but it’s much more difficult. Also it’s an unnecessary issue in the US because the head of the executive is not required to have the support of the legislative branch and the electors serve no other purpose.
I believe the most democratic way to elect the president would be a runoff like France’s presidential elections.
Nah the UK has it too, its technically possible to win a majority with about 1/9th of the vote. It also tends to result in the right wing recieving an inflated share of the effective vote.
They won enough seats and found just enough no votes to kill BBB and the minimum wage increase, and keep the filibuster intact so they couldn’t protect Roe or voting rights.
I wish they had done more too but they barely had 50/50 in the Senate and Sinema doesn’t count let’s be honest. So if we go back to this meme, Democrats keep winning, still just isn’t the case or if you think it is true, see my comment about don’t win enough. Enough being the key word.
Luckily they were able to pass lots of good legislation during that time of the thinnest of majorities. From Wikipedia: The Inflation Reduction Act, American Rescue Plan Act, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Postal Service Reform Act, Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, CHIPS and Science Act, Honoring Our PACT Act, Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act, Respect for Marriage Act.
I wish I still had hope. It feels like one step forward and two steps back. Arguing about supporting genocide less, and we haven’t even begun the discussion on microplastics, their effects on our health & environment, and how to deal with all that create them.
Sure, but voting for better options for not only president but down ballot is really less effort than shitposting on here. I dont blame anyones dismal outlooks, but the doomerism isnt doing us any favors. We need cooperation and the formation of stronger social bonds.
Dont forget that most of us here in the US are in the (globally) rare and privileged position of not being at direct risk of perishing due to the fucked climate. Its not us so much as the island and desert dwelling folks that are truly fucked. If we want to mitigate the already unreasonable damage weve caused, it will be done here in the rich and powerful countries who have the means to do anything about it in the first place.
While i wish our system was different, the way to change it involves taking all available paths.
We need to protect the LGBTQ friends, bc they are on our side.
We need to protect our democracy, bc it remains our primary outlet for change.
If youre capable of takong direct action, do so, build strong bonds with ur neighbors and peers, but vote in the meantime as well. Theres more elections than just the general presidential, and looking into whose running and what they want takes me very little time for the most part.
Weve no choice but to be the future we wish to see in spite of all the bullshit.
You vote for Democrats but they don’t win enough seats due to gerrymandering and idiot citizens…
Thank you. This is a BS take based in ignorance of all the factors involved in getting your legislation to the president’s desk. You have to vote every election all the way down the ballot or you can assume the same marginal success. (Edit autocorrect)
no wonder, with the “factors” being the elections being undemocratic
Yes you’re right that they are not perfectly democratic. Gerrymandering, the electoral college and representation in Congress being skewed towards land ownership all benefit Republicans. None of that will get changed through apathy. Nor will anything change pretending both sides are the same.
Look go vote, I do too, but voting is the apathetic reaction here. Its literally pressing a button to put someone you know is very compromised in charge. Its the other side of exactly the same coin, same policies and all. To that I would simply say get organizing.
And by god, the electoral college and gerrymandering combo alone put this system firmy in “not a democracy” territory. I mean they can essentially just choose the outcome of an election, makes all that theatre meaningless and I see right the fuck through it.
I get very wary anytime someone says both sides are the same. The same people who benefit from all the election trickery are the same ones who benefit from the two sides same coin disinformation campaign. It sows apathy. I’m not saying you’re wrong that Democrats are also corporate stooges just that their policies also help the little people while the other side of the coin exclusively helps the “haves”.
neither helps the little people, they just act like they do. the little people guy is currently financing a genocide of little people with little repercussion for him.
its like this all over the planet, the little people guy in my country is running the economy the same way the previous far right asshole did, and its currently trying to privatize prisions.
the real rulers calling the shots are the money class. those aint elected and are always helping themselves. if you don’t want to be apathetic, go after them. i’m suggesting this in addition to voting, btw
Don’t forget the Electoral College. The only democracy I’m aware of where you can win with less votes than your opponent…
… But We The People are all created equal amirite.
American exceptionalism at it’s finest.
I don’t get this argument as a non American. Is the presidential a total vote regardless of geography? Most democratic countries you vote for local member. A lot of countries share the problem of progressives living close together and landsliding one electorate, but have no horses in other rural seats.
In Australia the standard story is the Liberal (conservative) party getting the most first preference votes, followed by Labor (centre left) then the Greens (progressive) coming 3rd but giving enough preferences for Labor to win.
Voting is based on electoral districts, which are areas mapped out every decade by state legislatures, and each district has electors which are given to a candidate who wins the vote in it.
The problem is that citizens of less populated states have more voting power due to the rules on how many electors a state gets.
Plus, conservatives often gerrymander – intentionally drawing the districts so ethnic minorities are divided, and most districts are designed to have a majority of Republican voters while all the areas with mostly Democratic voters are all put together into 1 or 2 districts. States like West Virginia also lower the amount of districts in the state as part of the strategy. The gerrymandering has lead to some pretty insane looking maps (North Carolina, Texas, Alabama, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Ohio)
Also electors may not actually vote for the candidate that wins the election in their district, which is technically illegal but also not really illegal and has happened quite a few times.
This accurately describes it. Further explanation:
Election of the President - Electoral College
Each citizen of Wyoming with a population of around half a million has somewhere around 3.7x the voting-weight as a Californian citizen. Why? Because each state’s electoral votes to the president is the # of Congressional delegates it has.
For Wyoming: 3 Electoral Votes for the President
5.19 electoral votes per million people.
For California: 54 Electoral Votes.
1.37 electoral votes per million people.
Thus, you get elections where Presidents don’t win the popular vote, and we expect our country to function…???
This may not seem like a big deal, but across 15-20 low-populated rust/bible-belt states, the effect adds up, leading to some of our worst Presidents in history being elected by a minority vote, including Bush Jr., in 2000, and Trump in 2016. In fact, Republicans have only won the Presidential popular vote ONCE in over 30+ years (which was Bush Jr.'s 2004 reelection when the country was wrapped around fear post-9/11 and Iraq invasion…).
The electoral college is an antiquated remnant of the slave era. In order to get America functioning properly again, it must go.
Election of US House of Representatives - Gerrymandering
Gerrymandering leads to mapping Congressional districts in ways that favors one party over another. This is probably the best layperson video to explain it. Traditionally this has been done far more nefariously and effectively by Republicans, who have also been in power at key moments, including the 2010 and 2020 Census.
Gerrymandering itself has no effect on US Presidential elections except for perhaps reducing peoples’ interest in showing up to the polls in the first place if their district is gerrymandered.
Election of US Senators
This (and Governor races—effectively the President of the state) is how the US Presidential election SHOULD happen at minimum. Each individual in the state gets an equal vote regardless of where they live, and the person who receives the most votes wins.
We can discuss getting rid of FPTP later, but baby-steps.
I am not American. I am also from a non federal (unitary) state.
While non federal systems far from perfectly democratic, federal systems are inherently less democratic because they add another entity to the election process than the people, federal states. This is actually most egregious in senates where every federal state gets the same amount of members for being a state regardless of how many people it represents. Non federal parliaments have a similar problem because you have way smaller number of electors to represent the people.
At least in US presidential elections states are awarded electors based on their populations. However some or all states (can’t really remember) have all their electors vote for the leader even if he won the state 51% to 49%. This acts like a filter and always changes the result as in the percentage of voters for candidate A is different than the percentage of electors for candidate A. It usually does not distort the result enough to flip the election but it happened in 2016.
It can theoretically happen in parliamentary systems as well but it’s much more difficult. Also it’s an unnecessary issue in the US because the head of the executive is not required to have the support of the legislative branch and the electors serve no other purpose.
I believe the most democratic way to elect the president would be a runoff like France’s presidential elections.
Nah the UK has it too, its technically possible to win a majority with about 1/9th of the vote. It also tends to result in the right wing recieving an inflated share of the effective vote.
They won enough seats and found just enough no votes to kill BBB and the minimum wage increase, and keep the filibuster intact so they couldn’t protect Roe or voting rights.
I wish they had done more too but they barely had 50/50 in the Senate and Sinema doesn’t count let’s be honest. So if we go back to this meme, Democrats keep winning, still just isn’t the case or if you think it is true, see my comment about don’t win enough. Enough being the key word.
Luckily they were able to pass lots of good legislation during that time of the thinnest of majorities. From Wikipedia: The Inflation Reduction Act, American Rescue Plan Act, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Postal Service Reform Act, Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, CHIPS and Science Act, Honoring Our PACT Act, Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act, Respect for Marriage Act.
It’s a careful balance, and benefits the rich more that way.
So you’re saying it’s hopeless…
I do feel hopeless sometimes yes. But perhaps we should say “You vote for Democrats and they haven’t yet won enough”, to give us some hope
I wish I still had hope. It feels like one step forward and two steps back. Arguing about supporting genocide less, and we haven’t even begun the discussion on microplastics, their effects on our health & environment, and how to deal with all that create them.
Sure, but voting for better options for not only president but down ballot is really less effort than shitposting on here. I dont blame anyones dismal outlooks, but the doomerism isnt doing us any favors. We need cooperation and the formation of stronger social bonds.
Dont forget that most of us here in the US are in the (globally) rare and privileged position of not being at direct risk of perishing due to the fucked climate. Its not us so much as the island and desert dwelling folks that are truly fucked. If we want to mitigate the already unreasonable damage weve caused, it will be done here in the rich and powerful countries who have the means to do anything about it in the first place.
While i wish our system was different, the way to change it involves taking all available paths.
We need to protect the LGBTQ friends, bc they are on our side.
We need to protect our democracy, bc it remains our primary outlet for change.
If youre capable of takong direct action, do so, build strong bonds with ur neighbors and peers, but vote in the meantime as well. Theres more elections than just the general presidential, and looking into whose running and what they want takes me very little time for the most part.
Weve no choice but to be the future we wish to see in spite of all the bullshit.
Yeah.