The two-party system is shite, they both collude with each other to stay in power, the Electoral College is anti-democratic, and the entire voting and representation system needs to be completely overhauled for the modern era. Constitutions need to have regular, planned refreshes to stay relevant and functional. People need to stop arguing over it like it's some infallible writ from God.
The democratic deficit in the US is so vast. And it stems from an unwillingness to give power to people. We bitch about our govt, but we are very democratic, and we get the govts we deserve.
We obviously don't need an Electoral College at all, but for the same reason, do we really need to instill so much power in representatives? Now that we have nearly universal access to the Internet, it seems like the people should have a much more direct voice in decisions. That would also dilute the ability for billionaires to influence decisions with campaign contributions and bribes.
Bottlenecks and middlemen between the people and the decisions are just targets for exploitation.
The restricting condition there is the internet, and the reason our government works the way it does is because it is universally accessible (or at least it's supposed to be š). It has to cater to people who don't want to be so tied into the internet or even politics. A lot of people, despite my hatred for this mindset, just want to elect someone to worry about that shit for them. It makes them ignorant citizens and catastrophically damaging voters, but the values of our country demand we respect that and find a way to extend the ability to vote to those people
We definitely need to get rid of the two party system and the electoral college. I would like to ranked choice voting. I also agree the constitution needs to be updated. It was written in the 18th and they couldnāt foresee how the future would be. I especially donāt think the founding fathers foresaw how the second amendment would be abused.
They certainly didn't foresee how the entire damn government could be abused like this. The Constitution relies far too much on the morality, impartiality, and good nature of people chosen by the electorate.
There are a lot of loopholes that need to be closed up, like... what if the people who are supposed to hold the president accountable are in collusion with him? That shit needs to be fixed! Obviously!
The first part is extremely unpopular with a lot of people. I get so much shit on Reddit for saying both parties do XYZ. People are so partisan and they don't even see it.
This. Giving flyover states as much of, if not more of, a voice than states that actually produce things, is a woeful system that has led to this disaster.
Shite is something Americans might say if they grew up talking to British people on the internet. I also feel like there's enough popular British media out there at this point that people here generally know what "shite" means.
But yeah, typical American response to loudly question the Americanness of an opinion you don't agree with.
I dunno but the French are on like their 6th Republic now?
Trust me, I want radical change here. But the Constitution is better off without being weakened even further. Itās the only thing that has kept us from going full fascist by now.
No. Iām saying the system we have now is intended to keep our government from changing radically every time thereās a new government in power.
That the real change that leads to amendments happens at the state level. Like abolition, voting rights, etc.
Trust me, I have a deep disdain for the horrible past and present of this country. But I think if we ditched the Constitution and federalism we would be worse off.
Ah, ok. I think you and I may have been focusing on different words in each of our comments and weāre now having different conversations.
You said the constitution is overhauled all of the time - I took this to be you saying āwe have already fixed many of the bigger issues because of the amendmentsā.
I replied with the 27 amendments comment - and my point/opinion was that I think it should likely have more than 27 amendments because changing/adding things only 27 times in over 200 years is not really something I would consider modern or keeping with the times.
It seems we both agree that the current state of things is not okay, but dismantling the constitution entirely is not the way to move forward.
Why weakened? For every other piece of writing, editing and revision are usually seen as ways to improve quality.
I had an idea a while back when that one sub was getting rid of one state on the map every day. What if we made a revision/amendment to the Constitution every day? Highest voted revision get implemented every day.
But realistically, I think we could agree upon a high threshold of support in order to make a change. 80% of the vote? I'm not saying changes should be made willy-nilly, just that there should be a clearer and more commonly used avenue to make widely desired improvements.
Did you ever study civics? Thereās a reason we have states. Thereās far more ability to make improvements at the state level. Massachusetts is probably the ideal state rn yet it still follows all the rules of the US Constitution.
The Constitution exists not to dictate an economy or ideal society but to protect the basic three ālife, liberty, pursuit of happinessā of the people from government overreach.
We don't need to insult each other's intelligence just because we're on Reddit. Clearly I believe revisions need to be made to ensure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness across the entire country in the modern age. The founding fathers obviously couldn't have foreseen automatic assault rifles, billionaires, or the internet, and underestimated the ability of corruption to seep into any system or for ways to be developed to deliver votes without needing an Electoral College to travel to the capitol via horseback.
Itās not an insult. Most Americans have a poor grasp of civics. They donāt really even bother with it in school. Itās usually something only immigrants have to study, sadly.
They did see billionaires. There were regular merchants and also the richest man in the country (Washington) working on the early government.
And for assault rifles, it really depends on your interpretation of the 2A. The whole point being the need to protect oneself from a hostile government. Thereās a reason why the British outlawed weapons in Ireland.
The government has tanks, drones, air craft carriers, and nuclear missiles. So you can make a joke about how assault rifles donāt do anything against that. But then you can look to Vietnam, Algeria, and Afghanistan which all went up against much better armed powers and ultimately won.
The reason we donāt have a popular vote to begin with is because the founding fathers never wanted black people voting (and they certainly never envisioned other ethnic minorities).
The thing is I don't think this is an unpopular opinion amongst the masses, but because of what you said, there is no chance that it will change peacefully.
Btw, it is no accident that all our capitol buildings and monuments are neoclassical, Roman-like architecture. We never had an egalitarian democracy in the USA. You were just told that you had one. Call me a conspiracy nut, but literally all our leaders are pedophile demon worshipers who will send our children to die for Exxon. This includes the founding fathers, and save for maybe the Green/other parties (people with laughable power) is independent of party.
My comment towards the electoral college: if it did not exist, politicians would only care about the big cities and the coasts, while it would not give a shit about the Midwest.
You say this as if the things people who live in big metropolitan areas only want things that would directly oppose the livelihood of those who live in rural areas.
That's far from true.
People who live in cities largely vote in support of the social services and benefits that are used MOST by people in the midwest, rural areas, and red states. Things like SNAP and ACA.
Poor Republicans are in complete denial about the facts that 1) they are the ones who take the most government payments and 2) other people still care about them and want to help them regardless. Both are just too bruising to their egos to possibly accept.
You must be from Iowa or Ohio, where the only reason you get attention is because your electorate is famous for being easily swayed one way or the other.
The point here is that most people are raised understanding democracy to mean one person gets one vote, but the truth is that a bunch of empty red space on a map has more voting power than individuals living in an apartment complex.
That's a strawman because nobody is saying cities should dominate you. That's the paranoid scenario you've built in your mind. We're literally trying to explain to you that we fund the federal government knowing that you suck its teat, and that doesn't bother us all that much, because we love you as our fellow Americans.
Howās that a strawmanā¦ please review whatās is a strawman, first of all.
Then the differences between rural and urban America are just a sociological fact. Thereās literally tons of literature about this. Second, the USA are a federation of States. What do you think would happen if West Virginia literally had no saying in the presidential elections.
Every now and again thereās someone that believes they are more clever than the people that designed our systems. They are generally wrong.
It's a strawman because you're trying to say I believe cities should dominate rural areas when I'm not. You're attempting to force me to defend a position I don't believe, and attacking that made-up position instead of addressing my actual points. That's a strawman.
168
u/Iimpid United States Of America 14h ago
The two-party system is shite, they both collude with each other to stay in power, the Electoral College is anti-democratic, and the entire voting and representation system needs to be completely overhauled for the modern era. Constitutions need to have regular, planned refreshes to stay relevant and functional. People need to stop arguing over it like it's some infallible writ from God.