By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Cerebralbore101 on 29 July 2017
Edit Thread
fatslob-:O said:
Nem said:

I am totally in favor of that. In Portugal for example, the President doesn't have any executive power and calls forth the leader of the most voted party to form government. This government won't pass without having a majority in the parliment, wich often means alliances must be made.

In the US model, these consensus are not necessary because it's either one party or the other that has the majority in the senate and the president actually has executive powers. Though with that said, i was having issue with the electoral college system wich is think is very anti-democratic. When electing someone in democracy, every vote has to weight the same regardless of who you are and where in the country you live (aslong as old enough). That is what i find most offensive about the system. Just because i don't consider it democratic.

Anti-democratic is ideal, no group should have too much power in a representative republic and the electoral college is a good fail-safe for preventing voter fraud since swing states are monitored much more heavily ... (Just because the rest of the americans don't fall inline with the either of the coastal elites such as California or New York doesn't make them any less american.) 

The electoral college was originally intended to give slave owning states more power. Every slave counted as 3/5ths of a person under the electoral college. This was to ensure that southern states couldn't be outvoted by the more populus northern states. 

We also have the senate to help make sure that the minority isn't steamrolled in today's system, and that is a good thing. Every state gets two senators no matter what their population. This means that Republicans have a natural advantage in the Senate, and can put a stop to bad bills that arise in the House. The problem today is that the filibuster has made it so that you need a supermajority to pass anything through the Senate. This means that a single sitting Senator can effectively veto a bill. The end result is that nothing gets passed unless it is a terrible bill that makes too many concessions. 

If the ACA just needed a simple majority vote in both the House and the Senate it would have been a much better bill. It probably would have been a single payer system that doesn't step on the toes of anybody that doesn't want it. Instead we get this mandate that everybody is forced to buy insurance or pay a fine. That's no way to fix the system. It's just a handout to the insurance companies. Imagine if the government mandated that everybody must get their oil changed once a month. Mechanics would rejoice.