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 am strongly Anti-Democratic and darn proud of it because I AM A REPUBLICAN NOT A DEMOCRAT!

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.

One specific example of state's rights being used to defend Jim Crow policies was the case of Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896. The Supreme Court's decision in this case upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation under the "separate but equal" doctrine, which essentially allowed states to maintain racially segregated facilities as long as they provided equal access to services. This ruling provided legal justification for the continuation of segregation, with Southern states using the state's rights argument to maintain their discriminatory systems. It wasn't…  Read more until the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s and the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that this ruling was overturned in practice.

In the context of the party switch, it is crucial to emphasize the role of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This legislation aimed to prevent racial discrimination in voting by prohibiting the use of literacy tests and other discriminatory tactics, primarily used in Southern states, to disenfranchise African American voters. As a result, African Americans, who were predominantly aligned with the Republican Party since the Civil War, began to shift their support to the Democratic Party, which was advocating for their voting rights. The Republicans, on the other hand, started to use the state's rights argument as a way to appeal to Southern white voters who opposed the federal government's intervention in state affairs.

Given these historical examples, do you think that the state's rights argument has been used more often to oppose or defend civil rights throughout American history? And how do you think the state's rights argument will continue to evolve in the future?

Your whole anti-State’s rights position is dangerous to liberty and I will not tolerate it. You obviously have no understanding to speak of about our history, politics, or the way things work, not to mention the Constitution. Prepare to be debunked!

First of all, State’s Rights is an important part of our heritage as Americans. When the Declaration of Independence declared that these “United Colonies, are and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES [capitalization in original] … [and] that as FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES they have full power to do…  Read more all things which FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES of right may do…” – when they said that do you think they meant the States weren’t sovereign? You think that the word “State,” might mean something a little different than “county,” “parish,” or “municipality”? Of course it does, and the Founders knew this. When you declare independence from the most powerful Empire in the world you don’t let an important detail like the slip. So obviously, from the beginning the States were Sovereign Political Entities, independent of each other but bound in confederation for the preservation of their mutual liberties.