Democracy with conflicting results

In the past 32 tears, only once has the Republican presidential candidate received the majority of popular. votes. But the Supreme Court has a 6-3 majority Republican leaning. How can a democratic process yield such contradictory outcome? Where is it breaking down?

Of the 6, it looks like Thomas was nominated by a guy who received a majority of votes in the majority of the states, and that Roberts and Alito were nominated by a guy who received a majority of votes in the majority of states, and that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and Barrett were nominated by a guy who received a majority of votes in the majority of states.

Divided government, as deliberately envisioned by the Constitution. Plus a non-proportional electoral system and a highly decentralised electoral administrative system.

Most other countries have unified electoral systems and proportionality. And many are parliamentary states rather than presidential ones.

Why should the entity of “state” matter?

Why shouldn’t it? I’m a citizen of one “state”, and not another: I vote for this state’s legislators and governor, and likewise cast votes when words like “referendum” or “plebiscite” come up — sure as I pay taxes hereabouts, doing my part to bankroll state troopers who police accordingly — and then, sure as the US has its say as an ‘entity’ when the UN is selecting a secretary-general, my state has its say as an ‘entity’ when the US is selecting a president.

Were I to start a thread confusedly asking how come I don’t get to cast a vote when folks are selecting the governor of Alaska, I’d like to think you’d be right there (a) asking questions about my situation, and then (b) patiently explaining to me that, well, see, the entity of “state” matters. Wouldn’t you?

You should have a say that’s equal to the say everyone else has. My say in CA counts for a tiny fraction of your say. That’s not representation.

And obviously you don’t get to vote on internal Alaskan matters, so I’m not sure why you’d bring up that strawman :roll_eyes:

Republicans have figured out how to govern as a political minority. They have used legal and political mechanisms to undermine democracy, not strengthen it. Over time, if this continues, the inevitable result will be a dead democracy.

And these systems are superior to ours, which was conceived more than 200 years ago based on a very limited understanding of what enables a democratic republic to succeed. There was already a parliamentary system in England that had existed and evolved since about the 1300s, which is what our colonies imported with them. But the Framers realized they were building a nation-state, not a company or a small colony, and they needed to find a way to balance judicial, executive, and legislative power, but didn’t want the executive to act as a king. Being students of the Enlightenment and of classical texts, they leaned heavily on antiquity for inspiration. The Constitutions since then have had more experiences to draw upon, and are arguably better designed. Ours may be destined to fail at some point.

Keep in mind, the USA was never designed as a democracy, but as a federal republic.

Like I said, the US gets a say on various UN matters; and, in a sense, I guess you could describe someone who isn’t a citizen of the United States as having less or more of a say than I do in that regard — but that strikes me as irrelevant; the point is, it’s the US speaking with one voice at the UN when the time comes to pick a secretary-general. And, in turn, it’s not really a question of whether ‘your say in CA’ should count for more or less than mine in some other state; it’s that CA, speaking with one voice, gets to have a say — and that my state, speaking with one voice, gets to have a say — when the time comes to pick a president.

You asked: why should the entity of state matter? You seem to grant, here, that it matters for internal stuff; that’s why I’m barred from voting for Alaska’s governor and instead vote for mine. As far as I can tell, it also matters for the stuff of presidential elections; that’s why it’s relevant when a candidate wins in one state but not another.

It was designed as both, but with a different understanding of who is qualified to participate in a democracy. At the same time, there was a concession that times can change and that it’s up to the people who would ultimately inherit their system to change it for the better. I don’t think they ruled out a more popular democracy; the just didn’t think it was a particularly good idea at the time.

The United Nations is a very loose association of independent countries. Its resolutions are non-binding. And yes, it is absolutely a tool of the security council nations (but mostly the US, Russia, and China) to exert their influence on the rest of the world.

The United States is one country. We all pay federal tax at the same rate (unless you agree to adjust your federal taxes upwards to match how overrepresented you are in the senate or electoral college – that would be fair). We all go to war if the president says so. That a few states that consist mostly of empty fields should set the course for the nation as a whole is extremely undemocratic.

82% of us have fifty Senators. 18% of us have fifty Senators.

It sucks, but, hey, it’s in the constitution, and it won’t change.

The majority of votes in a majority of states is not the mathematical equivalent of a majority of voters expressing their will in the democratic republic as a whole in 7 elections out of 8 over a third of a century…,

And yet, it fails to be that. It’s a matter of established case law that a system like ours, with a non-proportional Senate, is not a republican form of government.

Not really as a end. They are dying and they know it and will need to remake the party. What has happened, and why they can stay in power to the degree they can is the electoral college system and the sennet both are favored to low population states. But many things are at work that will even have that system play itself out:

1- Americans are having less babies, thus less new citizens home grown, so the conventional mix of red vs blue babies who grow up to vote is down. This is a major reason that the right opposes abortion, have those American red babies God dammit.

2- To make up for that shortfall, immigration happens, and that provides a legal route to citizenship, which tends to vote more blue then red, hence why the right opposes immigration (legal and illegal as illegals can achieve citizenship, and even if they can’t their children are).

3- This balance has shifted us from a melting pot where everyone learns to be a good red American to a salad bowl as people hold on to their identity. There simply is not enough unified American culture to absorb and enforce the red way on the incoming people.

4 Black Lives matter has also empowered blacks and other minorities into voting, knowing and feeling like their voice matters, when it was previously suppressed and they were lead to live a life where they were second class citizens.

Other more recent factors:
1: COVID 19 has blue people leaving cities and heading out to live in areas which were red, but are now turning
2: Likewise the limited deductibility of SALT tax has people looking for alternatives to high property tax areas (blue cities/suburbs) again shifting them to reed areas.
3: Millennials have for a while started to leave the cities to head to smaller town centers, which includes small towns in red states, this people have been entering government and making changes.
4: Religious changes ideals such as the current Pope has expresses softened religious reason to vote red.

Now the red US can still play games with districts to hang on to what they have, but they are in many places already on the verge of losing, especially if black votes matter becomes ingrained and African Americans have a overall change of heart and come out in mass numbers.

The Melting Pot was never about everyone learning to become a good American, and I shudder every time I hear people refer to it that way (often sincerely, as an expression of what they think should happen). If you add tin to a pot of molten copper, the tin doesn’t learn to become copper. The whole mixture becomes bronze. The melting pot is partly about immigrants changing, true. But it’s also about the people already here being changed by the immigrants. It’s how we went from “No Irish Need Apply” to “Everyone’s Irish on St. Patrick’s Day”, and how “a taco truck on every corner” went from being a warning to a promise of hope. It’s how my Irish family now has a traditional family recipe for pierogis, and also about how I can refer to “my Irish family” even though I’m over half German and more Italian than Irish.

Very true @Chronos. Kamala Harris herself, as well as her marriage with the upcoming Second Gentlemen, are great examples of this - and of this including non-white cultures, too, a relatively recent development.

Many things about American political structures come from decisions made long ago which are no longer relevant to today’s society. For instance, why is election day on the second Tuesday in November? This was decided in a time when most Americans lived in rural areas. It was often necessary to ride for a day to get to somewhere where you could vote. By making the election day a Tuesday, it allowed people to ride for a day without missing church on Sunday or market day which was usually on Wednesday. It was decided to have election day in early November so that it would be after harvest but before the worst of winter weather.