Once a group is angry there is no way to stop them. They will go over the top no matter what. There is nothing to be done other than surrender to the anarchy.
History says you’re wrong. Often wrong.
The Black Power movement of the late 60s, early 70s wasn’t suppressed. It fizzled out on its own as some accommodation was made by the larger society and the hot heads recognized they were a small fraction of the community they thought they represented.
The anti-war movement (vastly, overwhelmingly white, although the blacks were the ones suffering disproportionately from the draft and combat losses) also wound down of its own after some mild accommodation from the mainstream.
Consider Basque separatism and the ETA. Or the Northern Irish Troubles. More of the same.
Winding down the anger starts with winding down the false rhetoric and the false facts. Also with penetrating the echo chambers. Easier to say than to do. But simple enough to identify what needs to be done.
As to you personally, you might try the same things yourself. It’s better for your blood pressure.
Assuming all this seething rage actually exists, what exactly is the cause of it, do you think the cause is reasonably related to the level of rage, and what exactly do you think is the solution for it?
Nah. You have to earn your banning. Insulting posters is one way to earn your banning, so I guess you are on your way with this Warning.
If you do not have the gumption to just walk away and stop whining that people do not think the way that you do, that is your problem. If you have to pretend that you are a martyr by breaking rules so that you can get the “authorities” to ban you, that is also your problem.
You are aware, I presume, that the Constitution would never have been ratified without an Electoral College? What you are describing is a feature, not a bug. The idea of Democracy was one the constitution was specifically designed to prevent. Specifically, to preclude a few large cities from deciding national elections.
Times change, and if you read my post carefully, you can see that such change is part of the premise of my post.
Yes, it was necessary in order to ratify the Constitution, but that’s no longer a good enough reason to retain it.
And the idea that regions or cities or counties or states are the political actors in our democracy is also obsolete. That was important in a time when a tiny elite controlled the political voice of every geographical constituency.
We are now a nation of individual people, not a nation of geographical units. The concept of “a few large cities deciding a national election” has no meaning in our modern reality because cities, whether large or small, or any other geographical unit are not the constituent units of our political life; it is individual people.
And every person is entitled to an equal voice, regardless of where he or she is located and how close or far the nearest neighbors are.
We each speak for ourselves as individual political units. We don’t surrender our political voices to to elite property owners, who speak for us.
As for features and bugs, we have deemed many such features as bugs and dispensed with them. It’s time to do that with the Electoral College.
The men who wrote the constitution were men of their time making compromises relative to the realities of their time. It is idiotic to shackle ourselves with those of their concerns that are now obsolete concerns.
Best of luck to you getting it changed. I’m fairly certain that you’re aware that it would require an Amendment, and the chances of getting ANY kind of Constitutional Amendment through Congress, alone, looks about nil right now. Likewise with calling a Convention.
I suspect that the people who consider the views of people with “old time religious values” who insist on laws that support those values or people with traditional religious values who believe that they are under attack from “godless modernists” would disagree with you. People of the West who see government “interference” with their grazing, logging, or river usage are often in conflict with city folk who hold beliefs about conservancy that decry the intended use by those of the former group. Farmers and industrial workers can be found with conflicting desires, goals, and priorities. People in the sun belt, (or the hurricane belt), see the need for government action differently than people in the snow belt.
And while it is fine to take a post-Maslovian view of actualized people each operating independently, the reality is that many people who think alike gather together for the purpose of making their voices heard. And, amazingly, those people tend to live near each other in geographic locations.
The Electoral college may be outmoded or in need of repair or removal, but arguing against it based on the odd notion that we should refuse to recognize that this very large nation has many regions with different and often conflicting requirements and priorities is not going to be successful, (or even correct).
But that’s empirically not true, given that pretty much every state, county, or zip code in this country has both blue and red voters (and voters for third parties and independents). That in itself demonstrates that people act politically as individuals, And whether or not they form constituencies based on other factors, they are not expressing themselves politically on the basis of geographic units.
If you say, well, X county went red, so its political voice is a red one, then you are ignoring the political voices of that county that voted blue, or green, or yellow. The only legitimate way to give legitimacy to all the voices in that county is count all the red voices with all the other red voices, regardless of geography, all the blue voices with all the other blue voices, regardless of geography, etc.
You seem to have missed the 59(?) precincts in Philadelphia in which not one person voted for Mitt Romney.
And while it is true that one can find individual voters in (nearly) any precinct who swim against the tide, the reality is that simply accepting a straight vote on many issues would effectively disenfranchise various groups. If your contention is correct, then we should abolish state representation in Congress and simply vote for all Congressional seats at large, nationally.
Times change, human nature does not. We’re still arguing over exactly the same kinds if issues they were arguing then. The notion that these issues are “obsolete” is ridiculous.
Which I think I said already in this thread. I believe that U.S. senators and representatives should represent people, and should specifically not represent states.
Now I don’t know that I would necessarily abandon geographical districts entirely, and completely at large representation had its own problems, but I believe that state boundaries should not be considered inviolate when deciding how to apportion members of the national legislature.
:smack: