The Supreme Court may overturn Roe v Wade according to leak

[Joel3102]

I think getting rid of the electoral college but keeping the Senate is a good middle ground. I think some state representation makes sense so that the minority states don’t get fucked over, but the electoral college is overkill. 

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, Joel3102 said:

so that the minority states don’t get fucked over

California and New York are currently getting fucked over.

Why don't you care about that?

[Tyler Robinson]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

California and New York are currently getting fucked over.

Why don't you care about that?

Texas will be next. 

 

[Hardkill]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Other countries have democracy where the majority gets its way, and have no such problem.

The opposite is actually the case. Under minority rule democracy is corrupted and people grow more resentful to the point of destabilizing the country.

It is not just or proper that the minor should elect a leader and the majority has to just put up with it.

The idea of having a minority rule a country might have merit in a second world or third world country because the elite running such a country are actually generally more intellectually and culturally developed than the vast majority of its citizens.

However, it sadly kinda of the opposite situation in America, at least on a national level. The minority of voters are actually the ones who are more stupid, more backwards, more racist, and more devious than the majority of voters in America on a national level.

Edited June 26, 2022 by Hardkill

[Joel3102]

8 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

California and New York are currently getting fucked over.

Why don't you care about that?

I do, which is why I don’t think a President should get elected without the majority vote. But it’s the United *States*. Small states will basically have no say if the Senate is gone. 
 

Australia also has a Senate is 12 Senators from each state regardless of size. Works fairly well

Edited June 26, 2022 by Joel3102

[Hardkill]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

California and New York are currently getting fucked over.

Why don't you care about that?

Actually, don't you think that there shouldn't have ever been a need for any kind of states' rights in the USA?

[Frylock]

1 minute ago, Joel3102 said:

I do, which is why I don’t think a President should get elected without the majority vote. But it’s the United *States*. Small states will basically have no say if the Senate is gone. 
 

Australia also has a Senate is 6 Senators from each state regardless of size. Works fairly well

Empty land doesn't vote. Absolutely ridiculous that South Dakota and North Dakota have the same power as California and New York.

[Joel3102]

Just now, Hardkill said:

Actually, don't you think that there shouldn't have ever been a need for any kind of states' rights in the USA?

If you wanna abolish states all together an become more like the UK, that’s a seperate argument. But given the very founding of the US is a union of states with seperate interests, that idea would be completely unrealistic

[Joel3102]

Another thing to note is the system you support completely comes down to which party you support. If it happened to be that the Senate and Electoral College favoured Democrats, there’s 0 chance liberals would be arguing against it using the same principled arguments. 

Edited June 26, 2022 by Joel3102

[Hardkill]

12 minutes ago, Joel3102 said:

If you wanna abolish states all together an become more like the UK, that’s a seperate argument. But given the very founding of the US is a union of states with seperate interests, that idea would be completely unrealistic

Obviously abolishing states' rights will never happen within the foreseeable future. However, I think that it honestly might've been a big mistake that our Founding Fathers made. 

Also, why should a state like Wyoming that has only about a 1.5% the population size of that California have as much of a say about the country as a whole?

Edited June 26, 2022 by Hardkill

[Raze]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

California and New York are currently getting fucked over.

Why don't you care about that?

How are they getting fucked over?

[Joel3102]

1 minute ago, Hardkill said:

Obviously abolishing states' rights will never happen within the foreseeable future. However, I think that it honestly might've been a big mistake that our Founding Fathers made. 

Also, why should a state like Wyoming that has only about a 1.5% the population size of that California have as much of a say about the country as a whole?

Perhaps the US founding was kinda fucked and the idea of uniting so many states with such different interests is proving to be a mistake, with the insane polarisation now. 
 

California still has a bigger say over the country obviously. There’s 53 vs 1 house seats in that case. The idea is to provide some balance to represent each states interest. Like it or not it’s not gonna change in the short or medium term.

[Frylock]

1 minute ago, Hardkill said:

Obviously abolishing states' rights will never happen within the foreseeable future. However, I think that it honestly might've been a big mistake that our Founding Fathers made. 

Also, why should a state like Wyoming that has only about a 1.5% the population size of that California have as much of a say about the country as a whole?

70% of the GDP comes from democratic counties. Red states like Wyoming and the Dakotas really contribute fuck all in the big picture but oppress the country through the senate. It's egregious, it's anti-democratic, it's stupid.

If Republicans win the house, senate, and WH, then expect a nation-wide abortion ban in 5 years. Will people actually revolt and fight a civil war? What about when gay marriage is banned as well?

[Joel3102]

2 minutes ago, Frylock said:

If Republicans win the house, senate, and WH, then expect a nation-wide abortion ban in 5 years. Will people actually revolt and fight a civil war? What about when gay marriage is banned as well?

Unlikely given the filibuster in the Senate.

[Hardkill]

21 minutes ago, Joel3102 said:

Perhaps the US founding was kinda fucked and the idea of uniting so many states with such different interests is proving to be a mistake, with the insane polarisation now. 
 

California still has a bigger say over the country obviously. There’s 53 vs 1 house seats in that case. The idea is to provide some balance to represent each states interest. Like it or not it’s not gonna change in the short or medium term.

According to this Vox article, "In 2013, the New York Times pointed out that the six senators from California, Texas, and New York represented the same number of people as the 62 senators from the smallest 31 states." This in and of itself already is already overkill with regard to balancing to representing each states interest. 

Not to mention, that most people from all the smallest 31 states combined are stupidier and more bigoted than most people from California, Texas, and New York combined. So, compared to most people in California, Texas, New York, and other big ones such as Illinois, most people in the smaller states are already too underdeveloped to be voting in major elections for the entire country.

Besides, as much as I am becoming more and more averse to the idea of states' rights, each of those smaller such as Wyoming could probably pass their own state laws that could to some extent water down any new federal laws enforced in each of their own states.

18 minutes ago, Joel3102 said:

Unlikely given the filibuster in the Senate.

Now that Roe vs. Wade has been overturned, McConnell and the Repubs in the Senate will probably carve out the filibuster to pass a nation wide abortion ban law throughout the entire country if the Repubs end up gaining control of both chambers in congress and the presidency.

Take a look at Noam Chomsky said in an interview:

"C.J. Polychroniou: Many Democrats wish to eliminate the filibuster — another Jim Crow relic — because with the wafer-thin majority that they hold it is impossible to pass into law landmark pieces of legislation. However, given today’s political climate, and with the possibility looming on the horizon that Trumpist Republicans will retake the House in 2022, aren’t there risks in abolishing the filibuster?

Noam Chomsky: It’s a concern, and it would have some weight in a functioning democracy. But a long series of Republican attacks on the integrity of Congress, culminating in McConnell’s machinations, have seriously undermined the Senate’s claim to be part of a democratic polity. If Democrats were to resort to filibuster, McConnell, who is no fool, might well find ways to use illegal procedures to ram through acts that would establish more firmly the rule of the far right, whatever the population might prefer. We saw that illustrated recently in his shenanigans with the Garland-Gorsuch Supreme Court appointments, but it goes far back."

https://chomsky.info/20210708/

 

Edited June 26, 2022 by Hardkill

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, Joel3102 said:

I do, which is why I don’t think a President should get elected without the majority vote. But it’s the United *States*. Small states will basically have no say if the Senate is gone. 
 

Australia also has a Senate is 12 Senators from each state regardless of size. Works fairly well

The US has very strong minority protections. It's not like the minority will be enslaved.

[Hardkill]

8 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The US has very strong minority protections. It's not like the minority will be enslaved.

Then we should definitely get rid of states' right, eliminate the filibuster, and reduce the power of the senate.

Edited June 26, 2022 by Hardkill

[How to be wise]

10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Other countries have democracy where the majority gets its way, and have no such problem.

 

If you look at the brexit vote, Scotland voted against leaving, but England with a much larger population voted to leave, as a result the UK left the European Union. Immediately after brexit, Scottish nationalism skyrocketed in Scotland, and all polls show that Scots now want to leave the UK. This is because they voted to stay, but a larger state forced them to leave.

Unlike other countries, each state in the US already has an ego, if you will. Each has a flag, a defined territory and a government. It won’t take a lot to stoke up independence movements in those states.

[Leo Gura]

Look, the nature of democracy is majority rule. Not everyone can have their way.

[How to be wise]

5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Look, the nature of democracy is majority rule. Not everyone can have their way.

The unity of the states is more important.