|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 21 2026 05:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2026 05:06 maybenexttime wrote:On April 21 2026 03:37 Razyda wrote:On April 21 2026 01:45 maybenexttime wrote:On April 21 2026 01:35 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2026 01:32 maybenexttime wrote:On April 20 2026 17:52 Razyda wrote:
Again this is not a discussion which is better majority vote, or EC. This discussion can be held if US try to change constitution, or if you trying to come up with best election system for new nation.
As it happens US already have election system, and for better or worse it is EC. In this system NPVIC has potential to disenfranchise population of entire states. Thats just a fact. And how exactly would that work? Well you see the voters in the state would count towards the popular vote and the popular vote decides the state. I'm pretty sure Razyda is talking about, say, Alabama voting overwhelmingly Republican and the EC votes going to a Democratic winner of the popular vote. Which makes you second person in this thread being able to understand it. As for how it would work: "Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." You either don't understand the legislation or you're making a bad faith argument. NPVIC would come into effect only if adopted by enough states to constitute a majority of electoral votes. Nobody would be disenfranchised by it. Everyone's vote counts equally towards the popular vote. Let's say people in Alabama vote for a Republican and their electoral votes go to a Democrat, who won the popular vote. So what? That's just an accounting artifact. Their votes still mattered. They were just not enough to give a Republican candidate a plurality/majority. Right. Losing the election fair and square doesn't mean that those losing voters were necessarily "disenfranchised" from voting or that their votes counted less in the final tally, just like how oBlade recently made a similar terrible argument when he cited a hypothetical 50.5% vs. 49.5% outcome in a popular vote and insisted the 49.5% are disenfranchised. Nope. Every vote would be worth an equal amount when the results are counted. This is normal for conservative mindsets though: when they win, there are no issues; when they lose, it's surely due to disenfranchisement and fraud and cheating.
Exactly. They don't care about fairness. They just want to keep their unfair advantage because their policies are unpopular. DEI for the stupid and deplorables.
From the foundation of the country, the conservatives - whether Democrat or Republican - have fought tooth and nail to disenfranchise the "undesirables". Now they want us to believe that people being disenfranchised is something they deeply care about. Give me a fucking break.
|
On April 21 2026 05:32 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2026 05:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 21 2026 05:06 maybenexttime wrote:On April 21 2026 03:37 Razyda wrote:On April 21 2026 01:45 maybenexttime wrote:On April 21 2026 01:35 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2026 01:32 maybenexttime wrote:On April 20 2026 17:52 Razyda wrote:
Again this is not a discussion which is better majority vote, or EC. This discussion can be held if US try to change constitution, or if you trying to come up with best election system for new nation.
As it happens US already have election system, and for better or worse it is EC. In this system NPVIC has potential to disenfranchise population of entire states. Thats just a fact. And how exactly would that work? Well you see the voters in the state would count towards the popular vote and the popular vote decides the state. I'm pretty sure Razyda is talking about, say, Alabama voting overwhelmingly Republican and the EC votes going to a Democratic winner of the popular vote. Which makes you second person in this thread being able to understand it. As for how it would work: "Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." You either don't understand the legislation or you're making a bad faith argument. NPVIC would come into effect only if adopted by enough states to constitute a majority of electoral votes. Nobody would be disenfranchised by it. Everyone's vote counts equally towards the popular vote. Let's say people in Alabama vote for a Republican and their electoral votes go to a Democrat, who won the popular vote. So what? That's just an accounting artifact. Their votes still mattered. They were just not enough to give a Republican candidate a plurality/majority. Right. Losing the election fair and square doesn't mean that those losing voters were necessarily "disenfranchised" from voting or that their votes counted less in the final tally, just like how oBlade recently made a similar terrible argument when he cited a hypothetical 50.5% vs. 49.5% outcome in a popular vote and insisted the 49.5% are disenfranchised. Nope. Every vote would be worth an equal amount when the results are counted. This is normal for conservative mindsets though: when they win, there are no issues; when they lose, it's surely due to disenfranchisement and fraud and cheating. Exactly. They don't care about fairness. They just want to keep their unfair advantage because their policies are unpopular. DEI for the stupid and deplorables. From the foundation of the country, the conservatives - whether Democrat or Republican - have fought tooth and nail to disenfranchise the "undesirables". Now they want us to believe that people being disenfranchised is something they deeply care about. Give me a fucking break.
Yes. This also reminds me of how the platforms, ideals, and titles for "Republican" and "Democratic" parties haven't always matched their current identities. It's cringeworthy when a modern-day Republican tries to brag about Abraham Lincoln being a Republican, or how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 may have had more Republican support than Democratic support, as if that translated to 2026 Republicans being pro-equality or anti-discrimination.
|
On April 21 2026 07:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2026 05:32 maybenexttime wrote:On April 21 2026 05:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 21 2026 05:06 maybenexttime wrote:On April 21 2026 03:37 Razyda wrote:On April 21 2026 01:45 maybenexttime wrote:On April 21 2026 01:35 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2026 01:32 maybenexttime wrote:On April 20 2026 17:52 Razyda wrote:
Again this is not a discussion which is better majority vote, or EC. This discussion can be held if US try to change constitution, or if you trying to come up with best election system for new nation.
As it happens US already have election system, and for better or worse it is EC. In this system NPVIC has potential to disenfranchise population of entire states. Thats just a fact. And how exactly would that work? Well you see the voters in the state would count towards the popular vote and the popular vote decides the state. I'm pretty sure Razyda is talking about, say, Alabama voting overwhelmingly Republican and the EC votes going to a Democratic winner of the popular vote. Which makes you second person in this thread being able to understand it. As for how it would work: "Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." You either don't understand the legislation or you're making a bad faith argument. NPVIC would come into effect only if adopted by enough states to constitute a majority of electoral votes. Nobody would be disenfranchised by it. Everyone's vote counts equally towards the popular vote. Let's say people in Alabama vote for a Republican and their electoral votes go to a Democrat, who won the popular vote. So what? That's just an accounting artifact. Their votes still mattered. They were just not enough to give a Republican candidate a plurality/majority. Right. Losing the election fair and square doesn't mean that those losing voters were necessarily "disenfranchised" from voting or that their votes counted less in the final tally, just like how oBlade recently made a similar terrible argument when he cited a hypothetical 50.5% vs. 49.5% outcome in a popular vote and insisted the 49.5% are disenfranchised. Nope. Every vote would be worth an equal amount when the results are counted. This is normal for conservative mindsets though: when they win, there are no issues; when they lose, it's surely due to disenfranchisement and fraud and cheating. Exactly. They don't care about fairness. They just want to keep their unfair advantage because their policies are unpopular. DEI for the stupid and deplorables. From the foundation of the country, the conservatives - whether Democrat or Republican - have fought tooth and nail to disenfranchise the "undesirables". Now they want us to believe that people being disenfranchised is something they deeply care about. Give me a fucking break. Yes. This also reminds me of how the platforms, ideals, and titles for "Republican" and "Democratic" parties haven't always matched their current identities. It's cringeworthy when a modern-day Republican tries to brag about Abraham Lincoln being a Republican, or how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 may have had more Republican support than Democratic support, as if that translated to 2026 Republicans being pro-equality or anti-discrimination.
Democrats have really only been the "good" party for less than they weren't. That's part of why the whole obsession with thinking of US politics based on party affiliation is pretty ridiculous in the first place.
It's not some deep ideological consistency that aligns them. They are leverage consolidators. Contrary to naïve popular belief, they aren't consolidating it for their voters, they're consolidating it for their donors while squeezing some bribes out for their trouble.
|
Northern Ireland26629 Posts
On April 21 2026 05:32 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2026 05:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 21 2026 05:06 maybenexttime wrote:On April 21 2026 03:37 Razyda wrote:On April 21 2026 01:45 maybenexttime wrote:On April 21 2026 01:35 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2026 01:32 maybenexttime wrote:On April 20 2026 17:52 Razyda wrote:
Again this is not a discussion which is better majority vote, or EC. This discussion can be held if US try to change constitution, or if you trying to come up with best election system for new nation.
As it happens US already have election system, and for better or worse it is EC. In this system NPVIC has potential to disenfranchise population of entire states. Thats just a fact. And how exactly would that work? Well you see the voters in the state would count towards the popular vote and the popular vote decides the state. I'm pretty sure Razyda is talking about, say, Alabama voting overwhelmingly Republican and the EC votes going to a Democratic winner of the popular vote. Which makes you second person in this thread being able to understand it. As for how it would work: "Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." You either don't understand the legislation or you're making a bad faith argument. NPVIC would come into effect only if adopted by enough states to constitute a majority of electoral votes. Nobody would be disenfranchised by it. Everyone's vote counts equally towards the popular vote. Let's say people in Alabama vote for a Republican and their electoral votes go to a Democrat, who won the popular vote. So what? That's just an accounting artifact. Their votes still mattered. They were just not enough to give a Republican candidate a plurality/majority. Right. Losing the election fair and square doesn't mean that those losing voters were necessarily "disenfranchised" from voting or that their votes counted less in the final tally, just like how oBlade recently made a similar terrible argument when he cited a hypothetical 50.5% vs. 49.5% outcome in a popular vote and insisted the 49.5% are disenfranchised. Nope. Every vote would be worth an equal amount when the results are counted. This is normal for conservative mindsets though: when they win, there are no issues; when they lose, it's surely due to disenfranchisement and fraud and cheating. Exactly. They don't care about fairness. They just want to keep their unfair advantage because their policies are unpopular. DEI for the stupid and deplorables. From the foundation of the country, the conservatives - whether Democrat or Republican - have fought tooth and nail to disenfranchise the "undesirables". Now they want us to believe that people being disenfranchised is something they deeply care about. Give me a fucking break.
And get annoyed that folks no longer believe them, even those who may have at some other juncture. There is a good reason for that.
It feels to me we’ve somewhat shifted from somewhat (at times) irreconcilable but earnestly held worldviews conflicting, to a more ruthless zero sum approach where power is all that matters and a whole load of bad faith comes with that territory.
Where prior I’d mostly just disagree with conservatives, maybe align occasionally, now I just don’t believe them that they ostensibly care about x principle or whatever.
Which is obviously unfair of me I’m sure some will claim, I’m not really sure how I’m meant to feel another way though
|
Northern Ireland26629 Posts
On April 21 2026 07:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2026 07:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 21 2026 05:32 maybenexttime wrote:On April 21 2026 05:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 21 2026 05:06 maybenexttime wrote:On April 21 2026 03:37 Razyda wrote:On April 21 2026 01:45 maybenexttime wrote:On April 21 2026 01:35 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2026 01:32 maybenexttime wrote:On April 20 2026 17:52 Razyda wrote:
Again this is not a discussion which is better majority vote, or EC. This discussion can be held if US try to change constitution, or if you trying to come up with best election system for new nation.
As it happens US already have election system, and for better or worse it is EC. In this system NPVIC has potential to disenfranchise population of entire states. Thats just a fact. And how exactly would that work? Well you see the voters in the state would count towards the popular vote and the popular vote decides the state. I'm pretty sure Razyda is talking about, say, Alabama voting overwhelmingly Republican and the EC votes going to a Democratic winner of the popular vote. Which makes you second person in this thread being able to understand it. As for how it would work: "Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." You either don't understand the legislation or you're making a bad faith argument. NPVIC would come into effect only if adopted by enough states to constitute a majority of electoral votes. Nobody would be disenfranchised by it. Everyone's vote counts equally towards the popular vote. Let's say people in Alabama vote for a Republican and their electoral votes go to a Democrat, who won the popular vote. So what? That's just an accounting artifact. Their votes still mattered. They were just not enough to give a Republican candidate a plurality/majority. Right. Losing the election fair and square doesn't mean that those losing voters were necessarily "disenfranchised" from voting or that their votes counted less in the final tally, just like how oBlade recently made a similar terrible argument when he cited a hypothetical 50.5% vs. 49.5% outcome in a popular vote and insisted the 49.5% are disenfranchised. Nope. Every vote would be worth an equal amount when the results are counted. This is normal for conservative mindsets though: when they win, there are no issues; when they lose, it's surely due to disenfranchisement and fraud and cheating. Exactly. They don't care about fairness. They just want to keep their unfair advantage because their policies are unpopular. DEI for the stupid and deplorables. From the foundation of the country, the conservatives - whether Democrat or Republican - have fought tooth and nail to disenfranchise the "undesirables". Now they want us to believe that people being disenfranchised is something they deeply care about. Give me a fucking break. Yes. This also reminds me of how the platforms, ideals, and titles for "Republican" and "Democratic" parties haven't always matched their current identities. It's cringeworthy when a modern-day Republican tries to brag about Abraham Lincoln being a Republican, or how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 may have had more Republican support than Democratic support, as if that translated to 2026 Republicans being pro-equality or anti-discrimination. Democrats have really only been the "good" party for less than they weren't. That's part of why the whole obsession with thinking of US politics based on party affiliation is pretty ridiculous in the first place. It's not some deep ideological consistency that aligns them. They are leverage consolidators. Contrary to naïve popular belief, they aren't consolidating it for their voters, they're consolidating it for their donors while squeezing some bribes out for their trouble.
Yeah it is patently ridiculous to consider the politics of a place through the prism of how it actually functions
Why would anyone ever do that?
|
On April 21 2026 07:41 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2026 07:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2026 07:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 21 2026 05:32 maybenexttime wrote:On April 21 2026 05:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 21 2026 05:06 maybenexttime wrote:On April 21 2026 03:37 Razyda wrote:On April 21 2026 01:45 maybenexttime wrote:On April 21 2026 01:35 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2026 01:32 maybenexttime wrote:
[quote]
And how exactly would that work? Well you see the voters in the state would count towards the popular vote and the popular vote decides the state. I'm pretty sure Razyda is talking about, say, Alabama voting overwhelmingly Republican and the EC votes going to a Democratic winner of the popular vote. Which makes you second person in this thread being able to understand it. As for how it would work: "Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." You either don't understand the legislation or you're making a bad faith argument. NPVIC would come into effect only if adopted by enough states to constitute a majority of electoral votes. Nobody would be disenfranchised by it. Everyone's vote counts equally towards the popular vote. Let's say people in Alabama vote for a Republican and their electoral votes go to a Democrat, who won the popular vote. So what? That's just an accounting artifact. Their votes still mattered. They were just not enough to give a Republican candidate a plurality/majority. Right. Losing the election fair and square doesn't mean that those losing voters were necessarily "disenfranchised" from voting or that their votes counted less in the final tally, just like how oBlade recently made a similar terrible argument when he cited a hypothetical 50.5% vs. 49.5% outcome in a popular vote and insisted the 49.5% are disenfranchised. Nope. Every vote would be worth an equal amount when the results are counted. This is normal for conservative mindsets though: when they win, there are no issues; when they lose, it's surely due to disenfranchisement and fraud and cheating. Exactly. They don't care about fairness. They just want to keep their unfair advantage because their policies are unpopular. DEI for the stupid and deplorables. From the foundation of the country, the conservatives - whether Democrat or Republican - have fought tooth and nail to disenfranchise the "undesirables". Now they want us to believe that people being disenfranchised is something they deeply care about. Give me a fucking break. Yes. This also reminds me of how the platforms, ideals, and titles for "Republican" and "Democratic" parties haven't always matched their current identities. It's cringeworthy when a modern-day Republican tries to brag about Abraham Lincoln being a Republican, or how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 may have had more Republican support than Democratic support, as if that translated to 2026 Republicans being pro-equality or anti-discrimination. Democrats have really only been the "good" party for less than they weren't. That's part of why the whole obsession with thinking of US politics based on party affiliation is pretty ridiculous in the first place. It's not some deep ideological consistency that aligns them. They are leverage consolidators. Contrary to naïve popular belief, they aren't consolidating it for their voters, they're consolidating it for their donors while squeezing some bribes out for their trouble. Yeah it is patently ridiculous to consider the politics of a place through the prism of how it actually functions Why would anyone ever do that?
You say that sarcastically, but it's literally the argument I'm making about a leverage based theory of change (supported by the historical evidence) and an "elections/party" based theory of change that is basically a recent product of the political equivalent of a "diamonds are forever" propaganda campaign.
|
On April 21 2026 07:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2026 07:41 WombaT wrote:On April 21 2026 07:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2026 07:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 21 2026 05:32 maybenexttime wrote:On April 21 2026 05:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 21 2026 05:06 maybenexttime wrote:On April 21 2026 03:37 Razyda wrote:On April 21 2026 01:45 maybenexttime wrote:On April 21 2026 01:35 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Well you see the voters in the state would count towards the popular vote and the popular vote decides the state. I'm pretty sure Razyda is talking about, say, Alabama voting overwhelmingly Republican and the EC votes going to a Democratic winner of the popular vote. Which makes you second person in this thread being able to understand it. As for how it would work: "Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." You either don't understand the legislation or you're making a bad faith argument. NPVIC would come into effect only if adopted by enough states to constitute a majority of electoral votes. Nobody would be disenfranchised by it. Everyone's vote counts equally towards the popular vote. Let's say people in Alabama vote for a Republican and their electoral votes go to a Democrat, who won the popular vote. So what? That's just an accounting artifact. Their votes still mattered. They were just not enough to give a Republican candidate a plurality/majority. Right. Losing the election fair and square doesn't mean that those losing voters were necessarily "disenfranchised" from voting or that their votes counted less in the final tally, just like how oBlade recently made a similar terrible argument when he cited a hypothetical 50.5% vs. 49.5% outcome in a popular vote and insisted the 49.5% are disenfranchised. Nope. Every vote would be worth an equal amount when the results are counted. This is normal for conservative mindsets though: when they win, there are no issues; when they lose, it's surely due to disenfranchisement and fraud and cheating. Exactly. They don't care about fairness. They just want to keep their unfair advantage because their policies are unpopular. DEI for the stupid and deplorables. From the foundation of the country, the conservatives - whether Democrat or Republican - have fought tooth and nail to disenfranchise the "undesirables". Now they want us to believe that people being disenfranchised is something they deeply care about. Give me a fucking break. Yes. This also reminds me of how the platforms, ideals, and titles for "Republican" and "Democratic" parties haven't always matched their current identities. It's cringeworthy when a modern-day Republican tries to brag about Abraham Lincoln being a Republican, or how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 may have had more Republican support than Democratic support, as if that translated to 2026 Republicans being pro-equality or anti-discrimination. Democrats have really only been the "good" party for less than they weren't. That's part of why the whole obsession with thinking of US politics based on party affiliation is pretty ridiculous in the first place. It's not some deep ideological consistency that aligns them. They are leverage consolidators. Contrary to naïve popular belief, they aren't consolidating it for their voters, they're consolidating it for their donors while squeezing some bribes out for their trouble. Yeah it is patently ridiculous to consider the politics of a place through the prism of how it actually functions Why would anyone ever do that? You say that sarcastically, but it's literally the argument I'm making about a leverage based theory of change (supported by the historical evidence) and an "elections/party" based theory of change that is basically a recent product of the political equivalent of a "diamonds are forever" propaganda campaign.
With "recent" you mean since the founding of your country, right? Because there have been a bunch of changes to your constitution, but not much at all has changed about how Congress or the president are chosen.
The fact that the parties aren't stable and are, instead, descriptive of the main voting blocks in the country is, if anything, an argument against your thesis: burning down the apparatus and starting again will most likely lead to something within the currently achievable political spectrum, and not something wildly new, and the USA has probably not been further away from a communist revolution than it is right now, maybe ever.
Finally I understand you are piggybacking on the point about the political parties working for the elite and always having done so, in a "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" kinda way. That's partially true but there is clearly a meaningful difference in ideologies between the parties. Maybe your ideology isn't reflected and everything east of social democracies is "basically fascism" in your book, but that's about as meaningful as a colourblind person claiming green is the same as red, because they can't see the difference anyway. Would I rather have less corporatism and lobbying? Hell yes. Does that mean all corporations are the same? Obviously not, and the choice between the parties isn't meaningless because they are both beholden to large donors. Lists like these make it quite clear what the lesser evil is: https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/biggest-donors
Are elections going to solve it all? Almost certainly not. But that doesn't make them meaningless.
|
On April 21 2026 08:50 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2026 07:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2026 07:41 WombaT wrote:On April 21 2026 07:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 21 2026 07:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 21 2026 05:32 maybenexttime wrote:On April 21 2026 05:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 21 2026 05:06 maybenexttime wrote:On April 21 2026 03:37 Razyda wrote:On April 21 2026 01:45 maybenexttime wrote:
[quote]
I'm pretty sure Razyda is talking about, say, Alabama voting overwhelmingly Republican and the EC votes going to a Democratic winner of the popular vote. Which makes you second person in this thread being able to understand it. As for how it would work: "Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." You either don't understand the legislation or you're making a bad faith argument. NPVIC would come into effect only if adopted by enough states to constitute a majority of electoral votes. Nobody would be disenfranchised by it. Everyone's vote counts equally towards the popular vote. Let's say people in Alabama vote for a Republican and their electoral votes go to a Democrat, who won the popular vote. So what? That's just an accounting artifact. Their votes still mattered. They were just not enough to give a Republican candidate a plurality/majority. Right. Losing the election fair and square doesn't mean that those losing voters were necessarily "disenfranchised" from voting or that their votes counted less in the final tally, just like how oBlade recently made a similar terrible argument when he cited a hypothetical 50.5% vs. 49.5% outcome in a popular vote and insisted the 49.5% are disenfranchised. Nope. Every vote would be worth an equal amount when the results are counted. This is normal for conservative mindsets though: when they win, there are no issues; when they lose, it's surely due to disenfranchisement and fraud and cheating. Exactly. They don't care about fairness. They just want to keep their unfair advantage because their policies are unpopular. DEI for the stupid and deplorables. From the foundation of the country, the conservatives - whether Democrat or Republican - have fought tooth and nail to disenfranchise the "undesirables". Now they want us to believe that people being disenfranchised is something they deeply care about. Give me a fucking break. Yes. This also reminds me of how the platforms, ideals, and titles for "Republican" and "Democratic" parties haven't always matched their current identities. It's cringeworthy when a modern-day Republican tries to brag about Abraham Lincoln being a Republican, or how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 may have had more Republican support than Democratic support, as if that translated to 2026 Republicans being pro-equality or anti-discrimination. Democrats have really only been the "good" party for less than they weren't. That's part of why the whole obsession with thinking of US politics based on party affiliation is pretty ridiculous in the first place. It's not some deep ideological consistency that aligns them. They are leverage consolidators. Contrary to naïve popular belief, they aren't consolidating it for their voters, they're consolidating it for their donors while squeezing some bribes out for their trouble. Yeah it is patently ridiculous to consider the politics of a place through the prism of how it actually functions Why would anyone ever do that? You say that sarcastically, but it's literally the argument I'm making about a leverage based theory of change (supported by the historical evidence) and an "elections/party" based theory of change that is basically a recent product of the political equivalent of a "diamonds are forever" propaganda campaign. With "recent" you mean since the founding of your country, + Show Spoiler + right? Because there have been a bunch of changes to your constitution, but not much at all has changed about how Congress or the president are chosen. The fact that the parties aren't stable and are, instead, descriptive of the main voting blocks in the country is, if anything, an argument against your thesis: burning down the apparatus and starting again will most likely lead to something within the currently achievable political spectrum, and not something wildly new, and the USA has probably not been further away from a communist revolution than it is right now, maybe ever. Finally I understand you are piggybacking on the point about the political parties working for the elite and always having done so, in a "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" kinda way. That's partially true but there is clearly a meaningful difference in ideologies between the parties. Maybe your ideology isn't reflected and everything east of social democracies is "basically fascism" in your book, but that's about as meaningful as a colourblind person claiming green is the same as red, because they can't see the difference anyway. Would I rather have less corporatism and lobbying? Hell yes. Does that mean all corporations are the same? Obviously not, and the choice between the parties isn't meaningless because they are both beholden to large donors. Lists like these make it quite clear what the lesser evil is: https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/biggest-donorsAre elections going to solve it all? Almost certainly not. But that doesn't make them meaningless.
No, I'm talking about the distinct shift in how people understood politics in the US that came after the civil rights movement. I previously described it this way:
Doesn't matter what you want politically really, what you need to get it is leverage. Small d democratic majorities and elections are one aspect of how you get that leverage, but historically, they typically come at the end after the work on the ground has made the status quo less tolerable than giving in to at least some of the demands.
Since the Civil Rights Movement, the pitch was "Hey women and Black people! We're (mostly) letting you vote now! Isn't that great! This is how you are to make any changes politically now! No more of that silly mass disruption stuff until demands are met! You can have big fun protests, just make sure to keep them symbolic"
We got mass incarceration (with legal slavery), women lost bodily autonomy, the surveillance state is out of control, Nixon's EPA is being dismantled, and the list goes on.
The idea that lining up behind Democrats after they finally parted ways with their most virulent racists in the 60's as part of a democratic political block to accomplish the things the poor people's campaign was aiming at before the US government conspired to subvert the campaign and assassinate MLK jr. for it looking too promising has categorically failed.
Any and all progress that can be said to have been gained since then must be recognized as happening despite the Democrat party, not because of it.
That said, I agree with your belief that elections won't solve it all and aren't meaningless.
|
On April 21 2026 05:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2026 05:06 maybenexttime wrote:On April 21 2026 03:37 Razyda wrote:On April 21 2026 01:45 maybenexttime wrote:On April 21 2026 01:35 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2026 01:32 maybenexttime wrote:On April 20 2026 17:52 Razyda wrote:
Again this is not a discussion which is better majority vote, or EC. This discussion can be held if US try to change constitution, or if you trying to come up with best election system for new nation.
As it happens US already have election system, and for better or worse it is EC. In this system NPVIC has potential to disenfranchise population of entire states. Thats just a fact. And how exactly would that work? Well you see the voters in the state would count towards the popular vote and the popular vote decides the state. I'm pretty sure Razyda is talking about, say, Alabama voting overwhelmingly Republican and the EC votes going to a Democratic winner of the popular vote. Which makes you second person in this thread being able to understand it. As for how it would work: "Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." You either don't understand the legislation or you're making a bad faith argument. NPVIC would come into effect only if adopted by enough states to constitute a majority of electoral votes. Nobody would be disenfranchised by it. Everyone's vote counts equally towards the popular vote. Let's say people in Alabama vote for a Republican and their electoral votes go to a Democrat, who won the popular vote. So what? That's just an accounting artifact. Their votes still mattered. They were just not enough to give a Republican candidate a plurality/majority. Right. Losing the election fair and square doesn't mean that those losing voters were necessarily "disenfranchised" from voting or that their votes counted less in the final tally, just like how oBlade recently made a similar terrible argument when he cited a hypothetical 50.5% vs. 49.5% outcome in a popular vote and insisted the 49.5% are disenfranchised. Nope. Every vote would be worth an equal amount when the results are counted.
Not my point at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
