iluvatar5150
Well-Known Member
- Aug 3, 2012
- 25,255
- 24,152
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
It's cute how all of the problems you've identified are more about helping a single political party and less about making things more democratic. It's interesting to note that you've also listed none of the problems that go the other direction (i.e. that wouldn't help your party).
The Electoral College is less democratic than a straight popular vote. I'll concede that the difference between the two is often overstated and I'm not too hung up on the movement to get rid of it, but its impact isn't zero. Eliminating the electoral college will make things more democratic, not less. I also suspect that getting rid of it will motivate more people to vote since voters of a minority party in a non-swing-state will no longer be merely competing with the rest of the voters in their state, but against the whole country, where the split is much closer to 50-50.
ETA: Now that I think about it, I'm much more interested in whatever impact abolition would have on voter turnout than I am on the geographic boosts provided by electors.
Hey, look, a strawman that tries to obfuscate efforts by Republicans to make the election process less democratic. There is no data supporting widespread vote fraud of the kind that would be prevented by tighter ID requirements. And Republicans have admitted that many of these efforts are designed to depress voter turnout among groups that would support Democrats.
That's a legitimate point of debate, but you'll notice that it was only one party who engaged in any sort of chicanery on that front in this most recent election and it wasn't Democrats.
You'll also note that, despite complaints from elsewhere, the California GOP doesn't think that the 2018 election was "stolen" from them because of nefarious activities:
Ballot harvesting bounty: How Dems apparently used election law change to rout California Republicans
These are directed at Trump and, at least as far as I've seen, are pretty inconsequential. They also do nothing to impact voters.
That's not anti-democratic. If anything, that improves democracy by giving voters more choice and more influence over who gets into office.
It's funny - you complain about extra qualifications that would potentially reduce the number of candidates on the ballot, but you also complain about ranked choice measures that could improve the odds of a greater number of candidates. So which is it - do you want more candidates to have a chance or fewer candidates?
Noticeably absent from your list are any mention of gerrymandering or campaign financing.
So, again, it would seem that your concern is less about democracy and more about helping Republicans. As a Republican, you're allowed to want those advantages, but presenting your concerns as being about "democracy" is, at best, misguided. If you really are, deep in your heart of hearts, concerned about protecting a robust democracy, then you owe it to yourself to re-examine your beliefs, because you're not being consistent. Pursuing your platform in its entirety is counter-productive to that concern.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
