6 ms·

> There are a whole bunch of things that I'm 120% certain need to be fixed with U.S. laws That is why there is a Constitutional Amendment process, which has be

> There are a whole bunch of things that I'm 120% certain need to be fixed with U.S. laws That is why there is a Constitutional Amendment process, which has been carried out successfully 27 times. > elector based voting needs to go away Essentially no major country practices direct election of the chief executive. It's not just the United States. For instance, in Canada individual voters did NOT vote for Justin Trudeau. He wasn't even on their ballot. They vote only for their local MP, and a bunch of party hacks from the party (or group of parties) with the most MPs pick the Prime Minister. The same is true for most countries with a parliamentary form of government. At least here Trump and Biden were actually on the ballot. Canadians don't have that luxury. What's worse, only the party's registered members get a vote on their party's selection, and most of the parties actually charge money to belong to them (to its credit, Trudeau's party is not one of these -- you can join the party without having to pay any money, though even with that party it wasn't the case until quite recently). > Thanks for pointing this out, that is indeed why the German Grundgesetz (constitution) is so good The Weimar Republic Constitution was widely believed to be good as well, but it sure didn't turn out that way in the long run. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_48_(Weimar_Constitution) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_48_(Weimar_Constitutio... Note that Hitler wasn't the first to exploit this flaw.

eqvinox 2y ago
> That is why there is a Constitutional Amendment process, which has been carried out successfully 27 times. Hence my note: "whether they need to be fixed in the constitution (or even an amendment) is a different question." > Essentially no major country practices direct election of the chief executive. That's not the problem with the U.S. electoral system. The problem is that it's FPTP on a per-state level, which distorts the vote. A page like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_in_which_the_winner_lost_the_popular_vote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden... shouldn't even exist. Other democracies do have similar issues, but to a much smaller degree (the German election system has in fact been declared unconstitutional due to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_vote_weight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_vote_weight — but note that the constitution in fact requires the vote to be "fair"! The U.S. just plain doesn't. (Same issue with gerrymandering.) > The Weimar Republic Constitution was widely believed to be good as well, ??? The Weimar Republic Constitution is widely believed to be flawed, and has been called that as early as 1925. Where are you getting this?
- Turing_Machine 2y ago
  > The problem is that it's FPTP on a per-state level This is the United States (plural). It was designed as a coalition of largely independent states, and that is never going to change other than at gunpoint. I don't believe that Germany allows (say) Russians to vote, does it? Heck, not even Italians get to vote in German elections, and they're at least in theory in the same European Union.
  - eqvinox 2y ago
    > This is the United States (plural). It was designed as a coalition of largely independent states, What does that have to do with anything? The U.S. president is the president of all people of the U.S. — applying per-state FPTP plainly distorts the vote. It doesn't have anything to do with state sovereignty or independence, it's simply a very poor voting system. Or are you saying the states should elect the president? I'm quite sure the U.S. general public won't agree with you on that. > and that is never going to change other than at gunpoint. The addition of this half-sentence reads as incredibly odd. Are you expecting someone to show up and hold the U.S. at gunpoint? > Heck, not even Italians get to vote in German elections, Italians do in fact get to vote in German municipal and EU elections if they have a permanent residence there. Same for any other EU citizen residing in any other EU country. Only for country level elections you vote in your country of citizenship rather than residence.
    - Turing_Machine 2y ago
      > > and that is never going to change other than at gunpoint. > The addition of this half-sentence reads as incredibly odd. There are millions of Americans who have taken oaths to defend the Constitution of the United States (Not "the government". Not whoever currently happens to be President. Not some "monarch". The Constitution) against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Virtually all of people these have military experience (it's part of the standard military oath, also in the oaths of office for many government officials). Attempting to forcibly change the Constitution outside the normal amendment process would almost certainly result in large-scale bloodshed, and changing it through the normal amendment process is never going to work, because the smaller states are never going to sign off on it. Those are the facts on the ground.

eqvinox 2y ago

> That is why there is a Constitutional Amendment process, which has been carried out successfully 27 times. Hence my note: "whether they need to be fixed in the constitution (or even an amendment) is a different question." > Essentially no major country practices direct election of the chief executive. That's not the problem with the U.S. electoral system. The problem is that it's FPTP on a per-state level, which distorts the vote. A page like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_in_which_the_winner_lost_the_popular_vote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden... shouldn't even exist. Other democracies do have similar issues, but to a much smaller degree (the German election system has in fact been declared unconstitutional due to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_vote_weight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_vote_weight — but note that the constitution in fact requires the vote to be "fair"! The U.S. just plain doesn't. (Same issue with gerrymandering.) > The Weimar Republic Constitution was widely believed to be good as well, ??? The Weimar Republic Constitution is widely believed to be flawed, and has been called that as early as 1925. Where are you getting this?

Turing_Machine 2y ago
> The problem is that it's FPTP on a per-state level This is the United States (plural). It was designed as a coalition of largely independent states, and that is never going to change other than at gunpoint. I don't believe that Germany allows (say) Russians to vote, does it? Heck, not even Italians get to vote in German elections, and they're at least in theory in the same European Union.
- eqvinox 2y ago
  > This is the United States (plural). It was designed as a coalition of largely independent states, What does that have to do with anything? The U.S. president is the president of all people of the U.S. — applying per-state FPTP plainly distorts the vote. It doesn't have anything to do with state sovereignty or independence, it's simply a very poor voting system. Or are you saying the states should elect the president? I'm quite sure the U.S. general public won't agree with you on that. > and that is never going to change other than at gunpoint. The addition of this half-sentence reads as incredibly odd. Are you expecting someone to show up and hold the U.S. at gunpoint? > Heck, not even Italians get to vote in German elections, Italians do in fact get to vote in German municipal and EU elections if they have a permanent residence there. Same for any other EU citizen residing in any other EU country. Only for country level elections you vote in your country of citizenship rather than residence.
  - Turing_Machine 2y ago
    > > and that is never going to change other than at gunpoint. > The addition of this half-sentence reads as incredibly odd. There are millions of Americans who have taken oaths to defend the Constitution of the United States (Not "the government". Not whoever currently happens to be President. Not some "monarch". The Constitution) against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Virtually all of people these have military experience (it's part of the standard military oath, also in the oaths of office for many government officials). Attempting to forcibly change the Constitution outside the normal amendment process would almost certainly result in large-scale bloodshed, and changing it through the normal amendment process is never going to work, because the smaller states are never going to sign off on it. Those are the facts on the ground.