Converation thread

“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...

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?

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.

“Democrats were founded to protect the institution of slavery and racism because that's what the majority wanted.”

While it's true that the Democratic Party has a historical connection to the protection of slavery, it's crucial to recognize that political parties evolve over time, and their platforms change. For instance, during the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s, it was the Democrats who pushed for racial integration and equal rights for African Americans, while many Republicans opposed it. Today's Democratic Party is not the same as it was in the 19th century, and its platform embraces social justice and equal rights for all.

As for the electoral college, I understand the concern for…  Read more smaller states being overshadowed by larger ones in a popular vote system. However, one possible solution could be to implement a ranked-choice voting system, which allows for more nuanced representation of voters' preferences and can still accommodate the concerns of smaller states. I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this or any other alternative voting systems that could address the issue of fair representation for all citizens.

Ranked choice voting is a way to rig elections and a system voters do not understand. As for the parties changing, they really haven't, Democrats still support racist alternative action programs that hire based on skin color and Republicans still push for equality of oppurtunity, while you push for equality of outcome.

Why would ranked-choice be a complicated system of voting? Many nations already implement this voting method into their elections, so it's not even anything new or radical. It literally just means you rank all the candidates based on which one(s) you like most, instead of voting for a single person and having all of the problems we currently have.

Secondly, I'm pretty sure @5K2PZRB is referring to the party switch, which happened gradually throughout the 20th century, largely surrounding FDR and the Civil Rights Movement against the Republican "southern strategy". It was…  Read more a pretty integral part of US history, so I'm surprised you don't know about it.

Ranked-choice voting being implemented in Alaska, as a system voters do not understand, significantly swung the political pendulum to the Democrats. Why would we change a system that Americans have used and understood perfectly for 250 years?

Secondly, the party switch theory is a tool left-wing myth -- completely false and ungrounded in reality. Lincoln was openly admiring of the Constitution and Founding Fathers whereas FDR was openly scornful of them. There were a few Republicans who opposed Civil Rights but there were way more Democrats, such as the segregationist Joe Biden, who was openly…  Read more admiring of the Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard and a ferocious racist.

Why do you insist that it's so difficult to understand? It's literally in the name: ranked choice...you just rank your choices. It's not complicated at all.

And you understand why it swung Democrat, right? Because our currently flawed voting system is designed to maintain the Republican Party; without it, they wouldn't hold as significant of power as they do now. Without the electoral college, Republicans lose; without gerrymandering, Republicans lose; without single-vote plurality voting, Republicans lose; etc. The reason our current, terrible system is maintained the way…  Read more it is is because it's the only thing keeping Republicans in power. Under our First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) system, voters are only allowed to cast a single vote per position, which fundamentally creates a two-party duopoly like what we have today. Our system disincentivizes third parties due to the spoiler effect, thus further reducing representative proportionality, and encourages dishonest tactical voting (such as voting for candidates you don't even like just so the other party's candidate doesn't win, as seen in the last several US elections). It is historically one of the worst systems of voting nowadays, as it was only originally used for it's simplicity in pre-technological times, and is only still in use for the sake of maintaining our corrupt party duopoly.

State's Rights is not inherently opposed to Civil Rights -- in fact the very reverse is true. Yet another example of how you haven't the foggiest idea about our history. State's Rights was used as an argument AGAINST slavery and the fugitive slave act, which forced states to turn in runaways, and State's Rights was used to abolish slavery in the North. I have also studied the U.S. presidential elections immensely and I am absolutely certain your party switch theory is false.

Correct, state's rights are not inherently opposed to Civil Rights; however, they were absolutely used that way during the southern strategy. Many southern states used the "state's rights" idea to defend the use of Jim Crow policies and segregation throughout the South during those times (similar to how it was used in the South's attempts to not have to give up slaves), just as the "state's rights" argument is also being used today to push against individual rights like abortion or gender-affirming procedures within many Republican states.

But yes, you…  Read more're right that states' rights are not inherently opposed to civil rights, such as the Fugitive Slave Act, in which it was vehemently opposed by Northern States, and supported by the South. Yet, at the same time, the South pushed for their states' right to choose to preserve slavery when the Northern abolitionists wanted to abolish it nationally (which it eventually was, luckily). It can obviously be used both ways, you just have to look at the context.

“In the early 1900s, both the Republican and Democrat Parties were not that different from each other, and it was common for politicians to flip flop between the two, until after the Great Depression, when the southern Democrat's more Liberal president FDR passed the New Deal to help pull us out of our bad situation, which prompted the northern Republicans to take a more conservative approach to separate their ideologies. This escalated until the Civil Rights Movement in the 60s, when Democrat president LBJ passed the Civil Rights Acts. This caused the racial tensions within the Democratic…   Party to snap, in which the pro-Civil Rights voters/politicians stayed with the Democrats, and the anti-Civil Rights voters/politicians (most of which were in the southern Jim Crow states) left to form the Dixiecrat Party, which was incredibly supported by the KKK and white supremacists who were against racial equality.Read more”

One interesting example to support the evolution of the two major parties is the case of Strom Thurmond. He was a Democratic senator from South Carolina who was initially against civil rights and even ran as a Dixiecrat in the 1948 presidential election. However, after the Democratic Party embraced civil rights under LBJ, Thurmond switched to the Republican Party in 1964. This demonstrates how politicians and their beliefs shifted between parties during the 20th century, as the parties' ideologies changed in relation to civil rights and other issues.

Moreover, the New Deal Coalition,…  Read more which included labor unions, racial and ethnic minorities, and other progressive groups, exemplifies the Democratic Party's transformation into a more liberal and inclusive party. This coalition played a significant role in shaping American politics and policies from the 1930s to the 1960s.

Do you think it's possible for the parties to undergo another significant shift in the future, given the current political climate and issues faced by the United States?

Unfortunately, our political system is designed in a way that makes it incredibly difficult to break the two-party duopoly we currently have, but I would love to at least see our two main parties broken up; perhaps the Democratic Party could break into a Liberal Party and a Progressive Party, whereas the Republican Party could maybe break into a Conservative Party and a MAGA Party, for example. Either way, breaking up the political duopoly and even instituting some form of proportional representation would be a significant improvement.

Although, I do still speculate that the current party divi…  Read morede will likely increase, with the general ideologies of each party gradually growing more radicalized and reactionary. Younger generations seem to be growing significantly more left-leaning than the Democratic Party, which will likely force the Democrats's policies and representatives to follow in a more progressive direction if they want to maintain relevance. On the other side, the older base of moderate Republicans seem to be dying off, with a more reactionary far-right base gaining prominence within the Republican Party; this may continue to shift the Republican Party into chasing after the more reactionary fanbase to maintain relevance, similar to how the southern strategy was successfully aimed at attracting the southern white-supremacists from the Dixiecrat Party.

“Younger generations seem to be growing significantly more left-leaning than the Democratic Party, which will likely force the Democrats's policies and representatives to follow in a more progressive direction if they want to maintain relevance. On the other side, the older base of moderate Republicans seem to be dying off, with a more reactionary far-right base gaining prominence within the Republican Party; this may continue to shift the Republican Party into chasing after the more reactionary fanbase to maintain relevance, similar to how the southern strategy was successfully aimed at attracting the southern white-supremacists from the Dixiecrat Party.”

One example that supports the notion of younger generations leaning more left and the older base of moderate Republicans fading is the increasing popularity of democratic socialism among the youth, as seen with the rise of politicians like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. On the other hand, the far-right's growing prominence can be observed through the emergence of more extreme political figures and movements, such as the Proud Boys and QAnon. These shifts may be indicative of a more polarized political landscape in the future. Do you think this increasing polarization could lead to a breaking point where the traditional two-party system becomes unsustainable, potentially making way for new parties to emerge?

Unfortunately, our current election system is designed to disincentivize third parties via the spoiler effect, but if we were to maybe institute some kind of ranked-choice or proportional representation voting instead of our single-vote plurality system, then I could definitely see other parties gaining significant success against the mainstream duopoly parties. I really would love to have more prominent parties to emerge, especially considering how disappointing our current main parties have been.

One example that supports the idea of ranked-choice voting benefiting third parties is the 2000 U.S. presidential election. The Green Party candidate, Ralph Nader, received 2.74% of the popular vote. In some states, the vote difference between the major party candidates was so slim that Nader's votes could have potentially altered the election outcome. Critics argue that Nader's candidacy played a spoiler role, siphoning votes from Al Gore and benefiting George W. Bush.

If a ranked-choice voting system had been in place, voters could have ranked Nader as their first choice without…  Read more fearing that they were wasting their votes or inadvertently helping a candidate they didn't support. This would have allowed third-party candidates like Nader to receive a more accurate representation of voter support without influencing the final outcome in an unintended way.