All true but wasted breath. You can’t argue about morality with someone who has no morals. You can’t argue about justice with someone who does not believe in it. To him, it’s all about winning. It’s all about putting the “right” people on the Supreme Court so that he can continue to play with his guns and fantasize about being Dirty Harry, or so that abortion will be outlawed so that others are forced to live by his religious beliefs. Or so that people be denied entry into the nation because he feels morally superior to them. That’s what matters. Having a democracy where voting is equally easy for all to participate in- naw, not of any interest to him whatsoever.
Holy crap!
That was a long post, wasn’t it.
So that’s what it comes down to: might makes right. The message you’re sending to the opposition is, “Next time you win, try to rig the system so that you keep my side from winning – of course we own the courts, too, so good luck with that. Nyah! Nyah! Nyah! Nyah! Nyahhh! Nyaaaahhh!” :rolleyes: You’re arguing that whichever side wins an election and, thus, wins power, has the right to change the political system, as long as they can get away with it.
Bricker, it seems cthat you have a preference for oligarchy and flawed democracy over a system that is truly democratic.
Why are these voters more likely to be Democratic?
Flawed democracy is when the majority makes the laws?
I think you know that “might” is physical force. What you are describing is a democratic outcome, not physical force. I don’t like democratic outcomes any more than you.
Why do you limit voting rights to citizens?
I’d be fine with non-citizen residents voting in US elections. That isn’t the issue here, the issue is blatant attempts by Republicans to win elections by voter suppression. Voters are supposed to choose their politicians, not the other way around.
Flawed democracy is when people without morals or ethics make the laws.
An elected government using their powers to make it harder for those governed to give their consent is a violation of the very principles laid down at the formation of our government.
Majority?
Donald Trump got nearly 3 million votes less than Hilary Clinton, yet he is president. Cite. Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed to the Supreme Court by a 50-48 vote, where the 50 “yea” votes represented 141 million citizens, while the 48 “nay” votes represented 181 million. Cite.
There’s nothing “majority” about what’s happening these days.
nevermind, wrong forum
No that’s regular democracy.
You do realize that very few people could vote back then? May want to update your rhetoric.
The folks operating in Georgia were elected by a majority, no?
Actually, Donald Trump got 304 votes, and Hillary Clinton got only 227, a clear majority for Trump.
Because Trump (and possibly Clinton too) were aware that the winner of the contest was determined by the electoral votes of the states that were won, not the total aggregate votes from each state. So they each planned their campaign strategies around that fact.
In other news, the 1960 Yankees should demand another World Series win. They should point out that they scored 55 runs to Pittsburgh’s measly 27 in the world series, and were still were not awarded the championship on the weak grounds that Pittsburgh won four games. I’m sure you’re outraged.
You’re not that dumb. Don’t pretend that this is an honest interpretation of “majority”.
I stand corrected.
In other news:
No, flawed democracy is when a minority can create political districts that give them disproportionate chances at winning an election and claiming that they’re a majority. Republicans are not a majority; they’ve won a majority of districts and they won the presidency, but mainly owing to quirks in democracy that give rural shitkickers disproportionate representation as compared with urban-dwelling baristas with nose rings and colored hair.
This is getting a little far afield, but the presidential election was not a referendum on GA voting laws, and neither was the election of Kemp as Sec. of State. To quote myself from the thread in Elections, which you decided to ignore:
It’s strange that a minority can accomplish that. Perhaps you are mistaken. I believe it takes a majority to configure political districts. Get back to me on that.
In a representative democratic republic, the sovereign will of the people is expressed through its elected representatives. We don’t have referenda on every legislative decision; the legislature’s actions are still the expressed will of the people.
There needs to be an equivalent of Godwin’s law for stupid sports metaphors. Believe me we all understand how the Elector College works. We learned that in 2000, with a refresher course in 2016. We just feel it an unfair and outmoded institution.
…unless a sizable proportion of the populace are being prevented or significantly obstructed from expressing their will by voting, in which case it’s not “representative”. See also: Jim Crow laws (again).