Elections 2032 is going to be very bad for Dems

It's just funny, because that's what he was originally arguing for and claimed every other democracy in the world has that system. He was proven wrong, and in typical leftist fashion, instead of just admitting that he didn't know what he was talking about, he writes a novel on how despite being completely wrong, he's still "mostly correct". Sound familiar? LOL.

Besides, he's only against the electoral college because he sees it as a Republican tool to win elections. If they got rid of it and the Reps started running away with mob rule, he'd be right there arguing that it's racist, and they need a system similar to the electoral college for all voices to be heard.
I never thought of him in this way but to have his first comment be that I don’t understand the meaning of America being a republic was ridiculous. Then to say that getting rid of the electoral college isn’t a move toward direct democracy is even more ridiculous.
 
Americans use the popular vote to determine state victories that decide the electoral college. Hence, America uses the popular vote.
The Electoral College doesn't equal one vote per State though.
 
This "aura" you speak of is a fabrication, and the product of right-wing narrative, which has been clearly effective at generating this impression.
No. They have it, because they embraced it. Even if it was just lip service in some cases.

Democrats were for: Defunding police, transgender insanity(or "rights" as the left would frame it), illegal immigration, "restorative justice"(letting criminals of a certain race get away with bad behavior), DEI, green energy pie in the sky nonsense, etc, etc. There isn't a hard left stance they didn't promote, except for maybe standing up for Palestine. Hence, why it was so easy for the right to frame them as such. If it quacks like a duck...
The major political campaigns by Obama, Biden, Harris had very, very little to do immigration and "chicks with dicks," or DEI.
I'd say that only Obama at least appeared genuine. Biden ran as moderate, but on Day 1 he cancelled pipeline production(oil bad!) and protected men being allowed to compete with women in women's sports(trans insanity). Kamala was just desperate and phony, and tried to convince people that she changed every one of her hard left stances stances in four years. Sure, you can claim that she ran a more moderate campaign, but nobody bought it for obvious reasons.
That is, the party ran on a traditional welfare state agenda and moralism against oligarchic privilege, but it is a narrative that has ran its course and lost its persuasiveness.
Probably had something to do with them bragging about how many billionaires they had on their side. Then they lost, and all of a sudden didn't like their influence in politics. Hypocrisy is a big issue for them. Naked and profound hypocrisy that is(they're all sneaky bastards).
Clearly, most of them know that going 'officially woke' would be suicide, which is why they have never done that and have stayed within their usual rhetoric. But that is precisely what got them into trouble, not being able to change generate a rhetoric that is appealing massively and capable of luring back the working class, while making the right appear nauseating. The right, in turn, was very savvy and reinventing itself and turning from the crusty old moralist conservatism to a techo-liberatarian circus with entertainment and unhinged populist vulgarity, nevermind traditional values or morals.
I don't think we're too far off of each other, but I would argue that they did change their rhetoric(over years, not just on the campaign trail) to resemble a far left mantra. I agree that their main problem is authenticity, no matter how you slice it. They're trying to please everyone, and pleasing nobody.
I'm not sure who ever claims that "if the left embraced wokeness" it would do them any favors. If anyone does that's a really fringe and stupid position. There are a few people in congress that are of that stripe, but they are very, very few and far between.
There are plenty of "they didn't go progressive enough" folks out there.
The democratic party needs something besides what they are
Can't disagree there. What that actually is, I don't know, because they've kind of managed to burn both bridges. As a start, they need to get rid of the out of touch dinosaurs of the party, like Schumer and Pelosi, and realize that it's 2025, and Barrack Obama's influence over the party is not what it once was, and quit trotting him out there like a God.
You are confusing the perception of the party with what the party itself is.
The perception matters. It's not some right wing trick, that they're being thought of as far left nutcases. They did that all themselves. How they shed that association is anybody's guess, but they need to do it and quick, if they want to have any sort of chance continuing as viable party.

That all said, I'd say the media and the activists/pundits are their biggest problem. They can only say so much, but when you have outlets like MSNBC, CNN, the entirety of Late Night TV, etc, carrying water for them no matter what, they not only appear to be out of touch with the common person, but also appear to be the "Establishment" that people naturally fight against. No amount of FOX News is gonna shake the fact that they have most media organizations in their pocket spreading their propaganda. Hollywood in general is a big one.
 
The ignorance of people. America is not a democracy. We are a republic. The idea of a pure majority rule is appalling.
What is a democratic republic in simple terms?


The Constitution established the United States as a democratic republic. It is democratic because the people govern themselves, and it is a republic because the government's power is derived from its people. This means that our government – federal, state, and local – is elected by the citizens.
 
What is a democratic republic in simple terms?


The Constitution established the United States as a democratic republic. It is democratic because the people govern themselves, and it is a republic because the government's power is derived from its people. This means that our government – federal, state, and local – is elected by the citizens.
A democratic republic is a system of government where the people elect representatives to make decisions on their behalf, following democratic principles like free elections.

However, we also have our constitution that protects individual rights and limits government power to prevent majority rule from becoming oppressive.

A democracy, in its purest form, means majority rule, where citizens vote directly on laws and policies.

Avenue tried to imply two things that were incorrect and for some reason tried attacking me as if I didn’t know what I was talking about.

First, that we are a democracy. We are not.

Second, that removing the electoral college doesn’t move us closer to becoming a direct or pure democracy. It does.

Direct democracy has its places in the local and even state level. Not at the federal level.
 
I have...repeatedly.

Hint: It's the thing you want done in America.
So describe the votes that happen for Canada to decide on a PM. What are they, if not popular votes?
I never thought of him in this way but to have his first comment be that I don’t understand the meaning of America being a republic was ridiculous. Then to say that getting rid of the electoral college isn’t a move toward direct democracy is even more ridiculous.
Observe, the posting of someone who doesn't know basic political terms.
Changing the presidential election to a popular vote is changing it to a system of direct democracy.
You not knowing the difference between indirect and direct democracy.
America is not a democracy. We are a republic.
Here's you saying the US isn't a democracy, because you thought they were mutually exclusive terms.
We are a democratic republic.
Oh wait, you realized you were dumb and that the US is both a democracy and a republic.
The Electoral College doesn't equal one vote per State though.
He's arguing that Canadians don't use the popular vote to pick the PM, even though they vote on MPs and then party members vote on who their party leader is. He also thought that the winner takes all rules in the EC are the equivalent to how parliamentary systems pick party leaders. I guess it'll be news to him that party leaders get booted by their party with some frequency.
 
So describe the votes that happen for Canada to decide on a PM. What are they, if not popular votes?

Observe, the posting of someone who doesn't know basic political terms.

You not knowing the difference between indirect and direct democracy.

Here's you saying the US isn't a democracy, because you thought they were mutually exclusive terms.

Oh wait, you realized you were dumb and that the US is both a democracy and a republic.

He's arguing that Canadians don't use the popular vote to pick the PM, even though they vote on MPs and then party members vote on who their party leader is. He also thought that the winner takes all rules in the EC are the equivalent to how parliamentary systems pick party leaders. I guess it'll be news to him that party leaders get booted by their party with some frequency.
You’re flailing, but you do you.
 
A democracy, in its purest form, means majority rule, where citizens vote directly on laws and policies.
You are describing a direct democracy, which is a specific branch of democracies. A democracy is just a system where elections are held to decide who's in charge.
Second, that removing the electoral college doesn’t move us closer to becoming a direct or pure democracy. It does.
It would make us an indirect democracy, in line with most modern democracies. IF you consider that a step closer to direct democracy sure, but indirect vs direct democracy looks more like branches of a tree (with lots of variants of democracy), not a spectrum.
 
Describe what the electoral college bases their votes on, if not popular votes?

Keep flailing.
The popular vote determines electors. Electors, however, are only allowed to vote on the overall winner in the state (barring a couple exceptions that split proportionally). That's not what a popular vote is and why it differs from how parliamentary systems function. A winner takes all system for deciding delegates is the antithesis of a popular vote.

You still don't seem to know how your own country picks a PM. Perhaps you should brush up on that instead of LARPING as an American. It's bizarre.
 
It is. That's literally all I’ve said this whole time.
Have you finally accepted that the US is both a democracy and a republic? At least link what definition you're using, because those terms haven't been mutually exclusive in a couple hundred years.
 
He’s usually not this idiotic trying to play “gotcha”.
You must not argue with him often, then. He plays this stupid game every single time he gets caught up in his own bullshit. Not exactly unique among the left, but he has the same "I can't possibly be wrong" attitude, and starts nickel and diming minute details of a subject, that he just previously recklessly painted with a broad brush, whenever he runs into a wall.

These guys are all just variations(some dumber, some smarter) of JVS. May have slight variations due to their fluent mental capacity, but the tactic is absolute.
 
The popular vote determines electors. Electors, however, are only allowed to vote on the overall winner in the state (barring a couple exceptions that split proportionally).
And why shouldn't they, LOL. You're now arguing for those people to go against the popular vote, in order for it to be an actual popular vote.

You're fucking retarded.
 
And why shouldn't they, LOL. You're now arguing for those people to go against the popular vote, in order for it to be an actual popular vote.
Where did I argue that? You seem incredibly misinformed about your own country. Canadians do not vote on the PM, they vote on party and MP. The PM serves at the whim of his party, because ultimately power resides in the party, not the PM.

This brings me back to the original statement that set you off:
Off the top of my head, countries that use the popular vote to pick party, executives, or representatives: UK, Germany, France, and pretty much all of Western Europe. Canada. South Korea and Japan.
Canada falls into category 1 and 3. And then you went ERMAGHAD we don't use the popular vote even though you literally do to pick number 1.

Number 2 is also picked by popular vote, it just happens to be by popular vote of party members. Because again, the party is more powerful than the PM. Case in point, you were whining about how Trudeau was PM without his party having the most votes, and his party booted him.
 
Back
Top