• Log In
  • Sign Up
    • It's so strange that the election can be so close when Biden leads in the popular vote by 4,000,000 and growing. Americans have voted for a Democrat for president in each of the past four elections, and seven of the past eight, the exception being 2004, when President George W. Bush beat John Kerry by about three million votes. But, depending on the outcome this year, only four or five times in those eight elections have they actually put one in the White House.

    • I think there are three fundamental changes that would completely change our political process for the better:

      1) Mandatory voting

      2) Rank Choice voting

      3) Popular vote election of the President (given 1 and 2 are in place)

    • There are many religious groups such as the Amish and the JWs that do not vote. Mandatory voting is a violation of the civil rights of anyone who deliberately chooses to not participate. It could even be argued that it violates the freedom of speech clause.

    • Urban residents want to treat the rural residents the way Britain used to treat its colonies and Ireland.

      There are vast areas of the US which would be rendered irrelevant and practically speaking disenfrancised if the metropolitan regions had all the political clout that the "popular vote" would give them.

      This would slowly but inevitably lead to laws which were written by people who were clueless concerning rural life.

    • Anything can be argued. And I would be perfectly fine with a constitutional amendment that mandated voting if necessary. You know, like, "voting being necessary to the security of a free State, all eligible citizens shall vote in national, state, and municipal elections".

      If someone would rather pay a fine then vote, so be it.

    • Your notion that anyone with a minority opinion is disenfranchised because they lose does not hold any merit on its face. There is always a minority opinion that loses in every election ever held.

    • And that mindset leads to the same kind of persecution which existed in Europe in the 1600s-1800s of those who were not conformists.

      The roundheads and the cavaliers of the UK, the beheading of Charles I of England, the rump parliament — all of these were the result of trying to force one's own views on others.

      It was said of Voltaire by Evelyn Hall that his attitude was — I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

      Even though I do not agree with the Amish and the JW, the idea of fining them or otherwise judicially persecuting them is repugnant to the mind of anyone who truly believes that people should have the right to hold views contrary to the majority view.

    • There are vast areas of the US which would be rendered irrelevant and practically speaking disenfrancised if the metropolitan regions had all the political clout that the "popular vote" would give them.

      This is pretty clear, what did I misunderstand?

    • Sorry, but you're making an ad absurdum argument. Let me know when Australia starts beheading people who don't vote and then maybe you'd have a point.

    • I was not talking about them losing elections.

      As metropolitan areas grow and as rural areas decrease in population, it will soon be possible for a candidate to completely ignore the rural voters and focus only on the metropolitan voters if the candidate can win a majority which is insurmountable by the rural population.

      This is why the American Colonies felt that the British parliament was passing laws which (in the colonist's opinion) were unjust. The American colonies were not given the ability to elect their own members of parliament but were still under the laws passed by parliament.

      If rural voters are hopelessly outnumbered by the metropolitan vote, it could lead to so much anger and resentment and a feeling of enslavement that history could repeat itself.

    • That sounds theoretically like it could be true but are we seeing that in practice in well-run democracies that don’t have electoral colleges? They seem as confused about why we have an electoral college as they are about why we have the health care we do.

    • Well, you literally said "practically speaking disenfranchised".

      Under the current system, all but the "battleground states" already feel "completely ignored". Even Georgia, Biden didn't visit the State until the week before the election. Since the margin of victory doesn't matter now, deep red or deep blue states can be completely ignored.

      Also, there is no equivalence between not having a vote (the colonies literally had no vote, it was called "virtual representation"), and having a vote that holds equal weight as every other citizen's vote.

    • From "":

      Voting is typically not prohibited outright, and the decision to vote is left to the individual in most congregations.   Donald Kraybill notes that in the Lancaster community, “Those who vote tend to be  younger businessmen with an interest in community affairs” (The Riddle of Amish Culture, Kraybill p 275).  The approach to voting varies between communities.

      Note, the Amish also pay income taxes.