In the USA, Americans are exposed to an election every two years. They are either midterms or presidential elections, not to mention local municipal elections. Hearing that we live in a democracy in various sources and history showing we live in a representative democracy as we elect people to represent us. The two-party system has dominated our discourse; we have some fractures in the parties Tea Party, Democratic Socialist of America, and Justice Democrats. They have to in the end caucus with the Republicans or Democrats and fall inline. The turmoil caused by the two-party system in America we get ensnared lost in the weeds while they take power. Why has no party or anyone made a change in the attempts to challenge the system?
The definition of Democracy, according to Dahl’s five core principles as described by Robert A Dahl Polyarchy & Participation: The Changing Democratic Theory of Robert Dahl. First, one of the tenets is Popular Sovereignty, in which the populace never gives up its sovereignty and retains the right to withdraw the granted power from the elected officials. Inclusiveness is the inclusion of the people in elections equally allowed to the people of a state. No gateways or limitations should be imposed or present to restrict voting—Political Equality, where everyone has equal representation and opportunity in a state. No political opinion is valid than another competing political opinion. Effective Participation in which the population of the state has the power to elect and shape policies by elected officials. Enlightened understanding is the education of the people on political, social, foreign affairs, and the implications of the impacts of the knowledge are going forward. The enlightenment of the people being the hardest requirement to fulfill
The goal of effective participation and political equality are like siblings that always go everywhere together. The supreme court assures political equality as the districts must be drawn in such that the population is equally distributed, and the minority is not disadvantaged. Being broad defines, this opens the arena for gerrymandering by political parties. The winner takes all system being implemented in all but two states Maine and Nebraska using district distribution. The Representation of such a system increases participation and equality, adding to inclusiveness as the votes reflect the will of the people and the various wishes. A safe state misrepresents the losing ideas or political opinion, causing inequality of participation and equality. To participate in a safe state and hold an opposing view to the all but concluded political race causes people not to participate. It is by effect, causing inequality of political ideas.
Ranked Voting
The ever-growing demand for more Representation and clarity or even choices when it comes to elections is louder today and will continue to grow — proposing that we implement ranked voting as in Maine. It is allowing for variance in electing and selecting the presidential hopefuls or the president. Then, suggest applying Proportional Representation to the electoral college votes distribution, allowing for every vote to be heard in the state that voted. Easing the issues bought up with gerrymandering, namely. As in Maine and Nebraska, the state mimics the effect statewide but only by applying FPTP on a district level. The electoral vote assigned to that district goes to the winner of the district.
Problems facing our elective representative republic or Democracy are echo chambers, unwillingness to work with each other and lack of political choices or power to the people and more to the elected. To define an echo chamber as an environment where the opinions held by the holder, are echoed by the people around them—disregarding any differing opinion that may contradict or push back on such beliefs. One could argue that the structure of the parties was the first exercise of echo chambers.
Exposure in the Hidden Tribes in 2018 deep dive into the politicization of American politics revealing a vast divide of the American population. The results found that the majority of the left and right are the minority. As extremist in the Democratic party is 8%, and the Republican party is 4%. The rest being tired and not engaged or centralist, not too much to the one side or the other. This study is through correlation; not causation seems to fit the trend of voters disconnecting from the process. 2014 election turn out in the midterm was an all-time low lower than the rate in WWII. The part of the eligible population not interested as the foregone conclusions of perceived victory of opponents either held in discontent or favorability as the study reveals the problem with Inclusiveness and Effective Participation is indicating the fact of contentment.
Ranked voting is a system of voting in which the voters can pick, for example, the top five choices one would like to see elected. The draw is that the candidate running for office be it the first time or for re-election. Will have to appeal to as many voters as possible. The voter gets a card and the breakdown of Candidate A, B, C, D, E, and F. To the right, there will be columns of the potential candidate the voter could pick. Then the voter fills in in preference order what candidate they prefer the top to bottom. Then a run-off round happens in five rounds where the candidate with the least votes eliminated. As the rounds go on, the pool gets smaller, possibly leading to ballot exhaustion. Where all the candidates in the voter’s preferred list are eliminated, and the ballot will not be counted in the final count. as the choices selected were eliminated, reducing to an extent as the messages will be tailored to depict a specific image of the echo chamber. Potentially solving the issues of echo chambers being an issue and encourage the promotion of the enlightenment principle of the population the Robert a Dahl holds to be a representative of Democracy as presented in On Democracy.
Proportional Representation
Proportional Representation of how it would be a better way to represent the populace. While not devolving into the fear of pure Democracy. Implementing the proportional representation system to the population in a given state will allow the people to vote as they vote. Let us use 62% Democrat 38% Republican; this would imply the people of the state in a winner takes all the 38% is now silenced. They are representing the silenced voices by allowing for the vote to count. Yes, it swings both ways as a red state, blue state, and purple state references show us how the people get represented. This scheme, the electoral votes allotted to the states would get allocated according to the percentages of the votes cast.
The thought of applying a comparable system in the USA currently is Maine and Nebraska, as they split up the electoral colleges’ seats by the number of districts. The district then holds a vote, and the FPTP system takes place, and the district goes red or blue then on the comparison to Proportional Representation is mimicked on a state level. Still victim to gerrymandering and district swapping.
The scheme of the elections would be more comparative and competitive, allowing for contestation to flourish. Yes, the analyst more risk-averse will decide on per state based on the viability. However, this will encourage more states to be visited and the candidate to reach out to as many voters as possible. The process will not favor one party or the other regarding the political parties in theory.
The principal of Proportional Representation is to allow for more Representation, and unlike the Majority Plurality, it will enable insurgent parties to get Representation. Proportional Representation happens to lower the ceiling in regards to the total votes needed to gain Representation. Also raises the floor compared to Majority Plurality requires a higher concentration of the voting block voting. Gerrymandering being the challenge by districting and distribution of votes done by parties in power to maintain power. That is the distal effects of the political institution. We in America run on First Past the Post (FPTP) and the party with low voter turnout or lack the voter concentration to gain Representation. The ones who lose are silenced and told to be quiet.
Being aware that this application of Proportional Representation outside of the district level would require an increase of magnitude (number of representatives per district), and that is a topic I did not focus on that research in-depth. That is why I am proposing the application of Proportional Representation on the Presidential election working within the framework of the Electoral College. If the state gets ten votes and has 60% votes one way, 40% vote the other way, the split of the votes would be 6 to the one-party and 4 to the other party. The Proportional Representation scheme is not perfect and has a bias toward the party in power or one that has more of the voting block. Suppressing the smaller parties, that is just a fact of life as one vote is one vote. Cannot give a party .39 a vote so the system would allow for rounding up or down to fulfill a complete vote.
There is another system that allows for Proportional Representation, but it assigns a value to a seat, either electorate or parliamentary. This system allows for a party to win a majority but not gain proportional seats as if a seat requires five votes and 33 total votes earned. Get six seats, and the greatest remainder will filter down to the smaller parties. This system will allow for the Representation of smaller parties but ultimately take power from the party that won the majority but failed to attain the required voted to secure a seat.
Proportional Representation also allows for the potential of the factorization of the parties. Compared to the Plurality system, where there is a de-factorization effect as it rewards the disproportionally more massive party and disadvantages the smaller party in regards to the seats awarded. Proportional Representation awards the seats more proportionally but still empowers the party who gains the most votes.
Apply on a state level Proportional Representation, allowing the people to be more accurately represented not entirely as a party cannot gain anything less than a vote. So, the system still rewards the larger parties, but to a smaller degree, the Majority Plurality, Greatest Remainder, and the worst offender is FPTP system.
For context application of Proportional Representation with an Elective System historically being used. They are bringing to mind the Latin Option mention in On Democracy Robert A. Dahl where they blended Proportional Representation with Elective system — leading to the long-term distal effect of corruption and abuse. That is why I am not to even play around with the idea of removing the electoral college granted protections to the smaller states. The difference from the proposition I am putting forward is not to remove the federal protections granted by the electoral college. Working within the electoral college system, applying the proportional Representation to the electoral votes, and ranked voting to select the candidates—no amendment needed as the states decide how to conduct and how they allocate the electoral college votes. No amendment required as the states decide how to perform elections and how they allocate the electoral college votes.
Similarly, the voting system will not support one or the other substantially, as there are never strictly Democrat or Republican Party line voters. There are issue voters, centralists who only register one way or another as to vote or not in closed primaries. There will also be an opening for more parties to form. There is a call for a third party, but like Bernie Sander (Independent), Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (Democrat), who are Democratic Socialists. They are a democratic socialist who has co-opted the Democratic Party. Not necessarily following the values of a Democrat in the American sense as JFK was a Conservative Democrat. The red scare was his most prominent opponent, and he was in favor of the American Capitalist way, let a JFK run now he would be considered a conservative. An argument could be had of Bush Jr being a Liberal Republican (No child left behind going against individualism and meritocracy)
The fear of the founders of the pure democracy rule will not be the same as the proportional Representation. A breakdown of the vote by the proportion respectively will allow and incentivize the state’s population to vote. As NRA podcast host Cam says, “Act as if your candidate is losing, turn out and get involved.” The prospect of even pushing voters is who supports the unfavored percentages by 1%, or 2% is better than the winner takes all system. Reasons are apparent as the people who are the opposing party in a blue safe state or red safe state will influence their ideological opponents as well.
When Ranked voting was in place in New York in 1930 – 1940, a communist was elected to the city council. The two-party system being Republicans and Democrats have fought against them. Peter Cacchione was a communist elected to the New York City Council in 1941. He was an Italian-American born on November 1, 1897, and grew up in Sayre, Pennsylvania. He served as a director of sports activities for the Catholic Welfare Council, later becoming a steelworker in Bethlehem, a streetcar conductor, riveter, and later a trainman on the Lackawanna Railroad. Cacchione joined the Communist Party USA and led a delegation of the communist-affiliated Workers Ex-Service Men’s League in the Washington D.C. bonus march. He became the National Commander of the League.
In 1936, New York City implemented the proportional representation system for council elections beginning with the 1937 election cycle. Cacchione ran in 1937, losing narrowly and was thrown off the ballot in 1939 as part of the Red Scare on technical issues for being a Communist. Elected in 1941 and re-elected in 1943 and 1945. Consequentially Councilman Hugh Quinn, Democrat of Queens, announced that he would challenge Cacchione’s right to sit on the Council under using Devaney Law. There were calls instead for him to denounce his ties to the Communist agenda or ideology. Despite his political affiliation, he was popular with the population, well-liked by his fellow council members.
Influences of media and bias
Enlightenment understanding of the population is crucial for active participation and the hardest to accomplish. Social movements have allowed the masses informed and uninformed to collectively ruin people’s lives in the court of social mob action and protest. How ignorance of the whole picture will cause the enlightenment of the population to be significantly harder to achieve given as the examples proposed below showed. The initial outburst of the story leads to outcry before all facts came out due to historical wrongs and other influences, but in these instances. The mob was placing their irrationality and rage on the wrong person(s). Showing the threat of the population is having a direct rule of the government if this was the extent of the reaction to the mediated stories.
Then when the Supreme Court nominee Brett controversy was under review in Congress. There was a controversy. He was being implicated in a crime that occurred 30 years ago to Christine Ford. The evidence being her memory and all the witnesses whom she called on refusing to come forward. Miss Ford is claiming that her memory is infallible. The mind of a human is not like recording a film on a digital or analog device, as explained on How Stuff Works. We remember more clearly the more potent the emotion but also on specific events, not the whole sequence of events. Prevalent in victims of muggings involving guns. Despite having a potential clear view of the face, they only remember or instead focus on the gun barrel. The other inconsistency is as time goes on, our brains will erase details of memory or whole memories as to make room for new memories.
Effects of bias that is complemented by the news coverage, be it favorable or condemnation of the subject or subjects. The Covington School Kids, where an Indian targeted these kids link here. After the disagreement with the religious group, the Black Israelites, the chaperon is allowing the kids to do chants for their school as to drown out Blacks Israelites per request from the students. Then the Indian he was at first seen as displaying his heritage and culture joining in on their chants.
The press had access to the video; the two-hour video evidence overlooked in favor of tropes(as it two hours long required time to watch the video). Independent journalist on YouTube had it correct. CNN and the other major news networks who are beholden to a corporation in which viewership and clicks matter. Even when presented with the evidence, staunch viewers of programs refused to believe the evidence and weighed the feeling of moral superiority while considering countering facts.
To derail a person’s life on mob rule alone is the fear of the founders under direct or pure Democracy. The French Revolution is a perfect playbook for the disastrous effects of the citizens rising and acting on a partial view of the whole picture. The history is potentially showing us where we could lead to by design and ignorance.
How can the country’s popular vote go one way, but does the electoral college vote go the opposite direction? The original agreement of the constitution is that the states were equal. The people are equivalent to another within the state they reside in. Now comparatively, that does make one vote here more influential or less prominent —this is a false equivalence as the only comparison that matters if the vote is equal citizen to citizen within the state, not in another state. That has already been ruled on by the supreme court that all districts must be drawn equally populace and not suppressing the minority. So, each of the states holds an election; then, in December, they send the electoral representatives to cast their vote. The election within the state is to determine the electoral representative. Then the results are calculated and tallied up. The fact each state gets two representatives in the Senate is within the framework of the Electoral College. The system implemented before the formation of the political parties feared by the founders.
The definition of Democracy, according to Dahl’s five core principles as described by Robert A Dahl Polyarchy & Participation: The Changing Democratic Theory of Robert Dahl. First, one of the tenets is Popular Sovereignty in which the populace never gives up its sovereignty and retains the right to withdraw the granted power from the elected officials. Inclusiveness is the inclusion of the people in elections equally allowed to the people of a state. No gateways or limitations should be imposed or present to restrict voting. Political Equality where everyone has equal representation and opportunity in a state. No political opinion is valid than another competing political opinion. Effective Participation in which the population of the state has the power to elect and shape policies by elected officials. Enlightened understanding is the education of the people on political, social, foreign affairs, and the implications of the impacts of the knowledge are going forward. The enlightenment of the people being the hardest requirement to fulfill
The goal of effective participation and political equality are like siblings that always go everywhere together. The supreme court assures political equality as the districts must be drawn in such that the population is equally distributed, and the minority is not disadvantaged. Being broad defines, this opens the arena for gerrymandering by political parties. The winner takes all system being implemented in all but two states Maine and Nebraska using district distribution. The representation of such a system increases participation and equality, adding to inclusiveness. As the votes reflect the will of the people and the various wishes. A safe state misrepresents the losing ideas or political opinion, causing inequality of participation and equality. To participate in a safe state and hold an opposing view to the all but concluded political race causes people not to participate and is by effect, causing inequality of political ideas.
Ranked Voting
The ever-growing demand for more representation and clarity or even choices when it comes to elections is louder today and will continue to grow — proposing that we implement ranked voting as in Maine. It is allowing for variance in electing and selecting the presidential hopefuls or the president. Then to suggest to apply Proportional Representation the distribution of the electoral college votes allowing for every vote to be heard in the state that voted. Easing the issues bought up with gerrymandering namely. As in Maine and Nebraska, the state mimics the effect statewide but only by applying FPTP on a district level. The electoral vote assigned to that district goes to the winner of the district.
Problems facing our elective representative republic or democracy are echo chambers, unwillingness to work with each other and lack of political choices or power to the people and more to the elected. To define an echo chamber as an environment where the opinions held by the holder, are echoed by the people around them. Disregarding any differing opinion that may contradict or push back on such beliefs. One could argue that the structure of the parties was the first exercise of echo chambers.
As exposed in the Hidden Tribes in 2018 deep dive into the politicization of American politics revealing a vast divide of the American population. The results found that the majority of the left and right are the minority. As extremist in the Democratic party is 8%, and the Republican party is 4%. The rest being tired and not engaged or centralist not too much to the one side or the other. This study is through correlation; not causation seems to fit the trend of voters disconnecting from the process. 2014 election turn out in the midterm was an all-time low lower than the rate in WWII. The part of the eligible population not interested as the foregone conclusions of perceived victory of opponents either held in discontent or favorability as the study reveals the problem with Inclusiveness and Effective Participation is indicating the fact of contentment.
Ranked voting is a system of voting in which the voters can pick, for example, the top five choices one would like to see elected. The draw is that the candidate running for office be it the first time or for re-election. Will have to appeal to as many voters as possible. How it works the voter gets a card and the breakdown of Candidate A, B, C, D, E and F. To the right there will be columns of the potential candidate the voter could pick. Then the voter fills in in preference order what candidate they prefer the top to bottom. Then a run-off round happens in five rounds where the candidate with the least votes are eliminated. As the rounds go on the pool gets smaller. Possibly leading to ballot exhaustion in where all the candidates in the voter’s preferred list are eliminated and the ballot will not be counted in the final count. as the choices selected were eliminated, eliminating to an extent as the messages will be tailored to depict a specific image of the echo chamber. Potentially solving the issues of echo chambers being an issue and encourage the promotion of the enlightenment principle of the population the Robert a Dahl holds to be a representative of democracy as presented in On Democracy.
Proportional Representation
Proportional representation of how it would be a better way to represent the populace. While not devolving into the fear of pure democracy. Implementing the proportional representation system to the population in a given state will allow the people to vote as they vote. Let us use 62% Democrat 38% Republican; this would imply the people of the state in a winner takes all the 38% is now silenced. They are representing the silenced voices by allowing for the vote to count. Yes, it swings both ways as a red state, blue state, and purple state references show us how the people get represented. Under this scheme, the electoral votes allotted to the states would get allocated according to the percentages of the votes cast.
The thought of applying a comparable system in the US currently is Maine and Nebraska as they split up the electoral colleges’ seats by the number of districts. The district then holds a vote, and the FPTP system takes place, and the district goes red or blue then on the comparison to Proportional Representation is mimicked on a state level. Still victim to gerrymandering and district swapping.
The scheme of the elections would be more comparative and competitive, allowing for contestation to flourish. Yes, the analyst more risk-averse will decide on per state based on the viability. However, this will encourage more states to be visited and the candidate to reach out to as many voters as possible. The process will not favor one party or the other regarding the political parties in theory.
The principal of Proportional Representation is to allow for more representation and unlike the Majority Plurality where it will enable insurgent parties to get representation. Proportional Representation happens to lower the ceiling in regards to the total votes needed to gain representation. Also raises the floor compared to Majority Plurality requires a higher concentration of the voting block voting. Gerrymandering being the challenge by districting and distribution of votes done by parties in power to maintain power. That is the distal effects of the political institution. We in America run on First Past the Post (FPTP) and the party that had low voter turnout or lack the voter concentration to gain representation. The ones who lose are silenced and told to be quiet.
Being aware that this application of Proportional Representation outside of the district level would require an increase of magnitude (number of representatives per district) and that is a topic I did not focus on that research in-depth. That is why I am proposing the application of Proportional Representation on the Presidential election working within the framework of the Electoral College. If the state gets ten votes and has 60% votes one way, 40% vote the other way, then the split of the votes would be 6 to the one-party and 4 to the other party. The Proportional Representation scheme is not perfect and has a bias toward the party in power or one that has more of the voting block. Suppressing the smaller parties, that is just a fact of life as one vote is one vote. Cannot give a party .39 a vote so the system would allow for rounding up or down to fulfill a complete vote.
There is another system that allows for Proportional Representation, but it assigns a value to a seat either electorate or parliamentary. This system also allows for a party to win a majority but not gain proportional seats as if a seat requires five votes and 33 total votes earned. Get six seats, and the greatest remainder will filter down to the smaller parties. This system will allow for the representation of smaller parties but ultimately take power from the party that won the majority but failed to attain the required voted to secure a seat.
Proportional Representation also allows for a potential of factorization of the parties. Compared to Plurality system where there is a de-factorization effect as it rewards the disproportionally more massive party and disadvantages the smaller party in regards to the seats awarded. Proportional Representation awards the seats more proportionally but still empowers the party who gains the most votes.
Apply on a state level Proportional Representation, allowing the people to be more accurately represented not entirely as a party cannot gain anything less than a vote. So, the system still rewards the larger parties, but to a smaller degree then-Majority Plurality, Greatest Remainder, and the worse offender is FPTP system.
For context application of Proportional Representation with an Elective System historically being used. They are bringing to mind the Latin Option mention in On Democracy Robert A. Dahl where they blended Proportional Representation with Elective system — leading to the long-term distal effect of corruption and abuse. That is why I am not to even play around with the idea of removing the electoral college granted protections to the smaller states. The difference from the proposition I am putting forward is not to remove the federal protections granted by the electoral college. Working within the system of the electoral college applying the proportional representation to the electoral votes and ranked voting to select the candidates. No amendment needed as the states decide how to conduct and how they allocate the electoral college votes. No amendment required as the states decide how to perform elections and how they allocate the electoral college votes.
Similarly, the system of voting will not support one or the other substantially, as there are never strictly Democrat or Republican Party line voters. There are issue voters, centralist who only register one way or another as to vote or not in closed primaries. There will also be an opening for more parties to form. There is a call for a third party but like Bernie Sander (Independent), Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (Democrat) who are Democratic Socialist. They are a democratic socialist who has co-opted the Democratic Party. Not necessarily following the values of a Democrat in the American sense as JFK was a Conservative Democrat. The red scare was his most prominent opponent, and he was in favor of the American Capitalist way, let a JFK run now he would be considered a conservative. An argument could be had of Bush Jr being a Liberal Republican (No child left behind going against individualism and meritocracy)
The fear of the founders of the pure democracy rule will not be the same as the proportional representation. A breakdown of the vote by the proportion respectively will allow and incentivize the population of the state to vote. As NRA podcast host Cam says, “Act as if your candidate is losing, turn out and get involved.” The prospect of even pushing the person a voter is in support of up in the percentages by 1% or 2% is better than the winner takes all system. Reasons are apparent as the people who are the opposing party in a blue safe state or red safe state will influence their ideological opponents as well.
When Ranked voting was in place in New York in the 1930 – 1940 a communist was elected to the city council. The two-party system being Republicans and Democrats have fought against them. Peter Cacchione was a communist elected to the New York City Council in 1941. He was an Italian-American born on November 1, 1897, and grew up in Sayre, Pennsylvania. He served as a director of sports activities for the Catholic Welfare Council, later becoming a steelworker in Bethlehem, a streetcar conductor, riveter and later a trainman on the Lackawanna Railroad. Cacchione joined the Communist Party USA and led a delegation of the communist-affiliated Workers Ex-Service Men’s League in the Washington D.C. bonus march. He became National Commander of the League.
In 1936, New York City implemented the proportional representation system for council elections beginning with the 1937 election cycle. Cacchione ran in 1937 loosing narrowly and was thrown off the ballot in 1939 as part of the Red Scare on technical issues for being a Communist. Elected in 1941 and re-elected in 1943 and 1945. Consequentially Councilman Hugh Quinn, Democrat of Queens, announced that he would challenge Cacchione’s right to sit on the Council under using Devaney Law. There were calls instead for him to denounce his ties to the Communist agenda or ideology. Despite his political affiliation, he was popular with the population, well-liked by his fellow council members.
Influences of media and bias
Enlightenment understanding of the population is crucial for active participation and the hardest to accomplish. Social movements have allowed the masses informed and uninformed to collectively ruin people’s lives in the court of social mob action and protest. How ignorance of the whole picture will cause the enlightenment of the population to be significantly harder to achieve given as the examples proposed below showed. The initial outburst of the story leads to outcry before all facts came out due to historical wrongs and other influences but in these instances. The mob was placing their irrationality and rage on the wrong person(s). They are showing the threat of the population is having a direct rule of the government if this was the extent of the reaction to the mediated stories.
Then when the Supreme Court nominee Brett controversy was under review in the Congress. There was a controversy. He was being implicated in a crime that occurred 30 years ago to Christine Ford. The evidence being her memory and all the witnesses whom she called on refusing to come forward. Miss Ford is claiming that her memory is infallible. The mind of a human is not like recording a film on a digital or analog device as explained on How Stuff Works. We remember more clearly the stronger the emotion but also on specific events, not the whole sequence of events. Prevalent in victims of muggings involving guns. Despite having a potential clear view of the face, they only remember or instead focus on the gun barrel. The other inconsistency is as time goes on, our brains will erase details of memory or whole memories as to make room for new memories.
Effects of bias that is complemented by the news coverage be it favorable or condemnation of the subject or subjects. The Covington School Kids, where an Indian targeted these kids link here. After the disagreement with the religious group, the Black Israelites the chaperon is allowing the kids to do chants for their school as to drown out Blacks Israelites per request from the students. Then the Indian he was at first seen as displaying his heritage and cultural joining in on their chants.
The press had access to the video; the two-hour video evidence overlooked in favor of tropes as it was 2 hours long this would require time to watch the video. Independent journalist on YouTube had it correct. CNN and the other major news networks who are beholden to a corporation in which viewership and clicks matter. None the less even when presented with the evidence staunch viewers of programs refused to believe the evidence and weighed the feeling of moral superiority considering countering facts.
To derail a person’s life on mob rule alone is the fear of the founders under direct or pure democracy. The French Revolution is a perfect playbook for the disastrous effects of the citizens rising and acting on a partial view of the whole picture. The history is potentially showing us where we could lead to by design and ignorance.
How can the popular vote of the country go one way but the electoral college vote go the opposing way? The original agreement of the constitution is that the states were equal. The people are equivalent to another within the state they reside. Now comparatively that does make one vote here more influential or less prominent —this is a false equivalence as the only comparison that matters if the vote is equal citizen to citizen within the state, not in another state. That has already been ruled on by the supreme court that all districts must be drawn equally populace and not suppressing the minority. So, each of the states holds an election; then in December, they send the electoral representatives to cast their vote. The election within the state is to determine the electoral representative. Then the results are calculated and tallied up. The fact each state gets two representatives in the Senate is within the framework of the Electoral College. The system implemented before the formation of the political parties feared by the founders.
Thoughts outloud 