How Easily Could America Become a Dictatorship?


Most people perceive it as unthinkable that
a country like America could end up a dictatorship. After all, America has an incredible amount
of checks and balances, and is well designed to weather the storm of dictators and tyrants. However, even the most well designed and manufactured
things can be broken, and many people have been weakening the fabric of our protections
— especially over the past few decades — and both parties certainly share blame. In today’s article, we will go over reasons
why America could theoretically lose its freedom and become a dictatorship, even if not in
name. 10. The American People Have Become Increasingly
Interested In Policy Over Process Perhaps even a decade ago, it would have been
unthinkable for people to have the sort of dictatorial mindset that they do now, but
things have become increasingly fraught. Where once people were concerned enough with
the constitution and process, there seems to be a spirit of getting fed up in general
with compromise and cooperation. Perhaps it’s the lack of delayed gratification
due to internet culture, but we now have a world where people seem to simply want their
political gains now, regardless of the future cost. This kind of shortsighted thinking causes
people to cheer on as politicians from both sides have chewed up a lot of checks and balances
that once protected us, in favor of doing whatever it takes to get what their side wants. If we continue to cheer this on, politicians
will continue to do so — maybe even to a more drastic extent — and we will continue
to have less and less real power and influence over the process. 9. Foreign Dark Money And Influence Have Entered
The American Political Sphere One of the biggest worries of George Washington
was that too much foreign involvement would lead to too much foreign influence. Now, unfortunately, this fear is starting
to become real in ways he likely never even thought of. Washington was more concerned with too many
international treaties, wars, and other involvements, and that is a pandora’s box that we opened
long ago. However, the truth is that Supreme Court decision
on Citizens United opened up a new kind of foreign influence that a lot of people never
expected. Most people focus on the fact the decision
gave more power of money (which many believe equals speech in politics) to the big corporations,
by basically saying they were individual people or entities when it came to their freedom
to spend their bucks to give their opinions. And while many have considered this decision
controversial, a lot of people didn’t notice that a part of the core decisions of Citizens
United also made it way, way easier for dark money from other countries to enter our political
system, and begin causing corruption and other problems that are very, very hard to track. 8. The Senate Is Gaining Incredible Power At
The Expense Of The Congress There are supposed to be the three equal branches
of US government: the executive, the judiciary, and the legislative. The legislative consists of both the house
and the senate, and they are supposed to be equal. But recently, this has hardly been the case. The fact is that the senate already had a
lot of power, such as being able to approve judges, including Supreme Court justices for
life, without the involvement of the house at all. But never was the problem so clear until Senate
Majority Leaders Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell, hailing from the two major political parties
in Washington, decided to remove pieces of the filibuster for various types of nominees,
in order to “remove gridlock in Washington.” This removal of gridlock in Washington has
longterm ramifications, as it greatly changes the balance in the senate. Now, a very bare majority that votes together
can force through a massive amount of judges with impunity — there is literally nothing
that can be done to stop them. While there are arguments that the filibuster
was being abused, it is also clear that removing it entirely for judicial nominees, without
perhaps some kind of power sharing agreement over the issue with the house first, is only
concentrating power in fewer and fewer hands, which is ultimately bad for democracy, regardless
of which individuals are in charge. 7. The Power Of The Executive Has Increased By
Leaps And Bounds Since the days of “President” Dick Cheney
and his faithful sidekick George W. Bush (We kid, we kid!), the power of the executive
has greatly increased. Beginning in recent history with the second
Bush administration, we saw the powers that be invoking “executive privilege” in unprecedented
ways to avoid oversight. And while President Barack Obama claimed he
was doing it to avoid trumped up inquisitions, his administration also made use of some of
the same privileges. On top of that, President Obama issued a number
of executive orders (more notable for the scope of what they did than the sheer amount),
all of which have already been reversed by President Trump. However, the fact that they are mostly non-binding
(in that a new president can put a stop to them) is only so much comfort because in the
meantime they can be very hard to challenge, and the president could just continue on with
an abusive executive order. Now, we have the Trump administration utilizing
the attorney general as the president’s personal defense lawyer, and invoking blanket
executive privilege on literally anything that would usually fall under congressional
oversight. If we continue down this path, the logical
conclusion is that the office of the presidency itself could end up entirely above the law. Regardless of your party affiliation or who
is in office, this cannot be viewed as a good thing. 6. The Supreme Court Is Becoming Dangerously
Political, And Drastic Steps May Be Taken We are in uncharted territory with the Supreme
Court. A nominee was blocked from even being considered
for an unprecedented amount of time, solely for political reasons (in the hopes that a
friendly president could elect someone more ideologically to the right). Since the right leaning president won, this
gambit paid off, and then another justice retired and was replaced by a more right leaning
justice. This, along with the very real possibility
that Ruth Bader Ginsburg could be replaced by a nominee chosen by Donald Trump, and many
are worried that the court could soon be extremely stacked to one side, and done so in a way
that completely throws precedent, and consent procedures of the senate and the rule of law
and fairness, completely out the window. (And before you head to the comments, if the
same thing was happening under a Democrat, we’d be saying the same thing since, by
its very nature, the Supreme Court is meant to be neutral and impartial regardless of
who is sitting in the Oval Office.) However, while perhaps an argument could be
made that the balance of the court needs to be restored, and that it has become too politicized
in general (not to mention the fact that lifetime term limits are too long), some people are
talking about extremely drastic steps that could lead us further and further into autocracy. The most drastic step being mentioned is simply
adding a bunch of seats while a Democrat is president, but not only would that lead to
huge political backlash, but a future Republican president might just then add more, or remove
some. The Supreme Court would become even more of
a political football and no one would be able to trust their decisions again. Perhaps we need to end the lifetime term limits,
and add staggered term limits to the ones in office, so they don’t all exit at once,
and don’t all get replaced by one president. Perhaps something does indeed need to be done
to restore the balance, but just trying to pack the court is a very dangerous road, and
may just lead to more and more power being concentrated, once again, in fewer and fewer
hands. 5. The President’s Cabinet Is Supposed To Be
More Independent, But That Is Ending The way it is supposed to work is that the
president, when it comes to his cabinet, picks people not necessarily who are loyal to him,
but who are going to be the best for the job. After they are nominated and confirmed, they
are supposed to be independent and focused on running their section of the executive
on their own. This allows for a more robust democracy, and
for proper delegation of presidential and executive duties and authorities. The problem is that in recent years, it has
become increasingly normal for presidents to appoint people more based on loyalty to
the party than what they are good at, and with the addition of policy “czars” who
tend to be extra loyal to the president, more power is being concentrated in the hands of
the top individual running the executive branch. On top of that, one of the filibusters that
Harry Reid removed was for presidential cabinet nominees, which gives a friendly senate even
more power to simply force through a bunch of highly “loyal” nominees for their new
president. 4. Congress Abdicating Its Emergency Powers Is
Quite Dangerous When President Donald Trump issued a State
of Emergency in order to appropriate money for his Southern Border Wall, there were many
on both sides of the political aisle who were concerned, because if it was allowed to go
through unchallenged and became a precedent, congress’s collective power would drastically
weaken as the president could now end-run around them anytime he wants. Only a two-thirds majority can actually stop
any president, which is rather hard to do with how tribal party politics have become. While it is still being challenged by the
courts, if allowed to go through the precedent could be bad for people of either party and
not enough Republicans were willing to embarrass the president in order to protect their own
power. Some may be happy now if it works and President
Trump is able to build a border wall, but a Democratic president could just as easily
use a State of Emergency, in the same vein, to go and seize all the guns, ban huge amounts
of fossil fuel (claiming an environmental crisis), give people universal healthcare
by declaring a healthcare emergency, and so on. This kind of emergency power literally allows
the president to be a dictator — and that’s not good for anyone, even if you currently
agree with whatever party that president is hailing from. 3. Gerrymandering, Voter Suppression, And The
Electoral College Allow For Minority Rule So some people ask, how can you have a dictatorship
if the majority of the people are clearly not okay with it? And the answer is, you rig the system so hard
it is almost impossible for a fair vote. In the United States, gerrymandering is often
challenged in the courts, but we don’t really have a nationwide standard yet to truly put
an end to this madness. Right now districts are divided up way too
often on clearly biased grounds in order to benefit one party or another, and in general
voter suppression is about as rampant as it has been since the days of Jim Crow. To make matters worse, the electoral college
is an outmoded system that gives extra power to a smaller number of people, and it also
makes people’s votes count significantly less. The truth is the reason voter enthusiasm is
often so low is because people feel like their vote doesn’t matter. And the truth is that beyond symbolism, if
you don’t live in a swing state, it probably doesn’t matter that much, ultimately. This is because due to the electoral college,
the popular vote is not recognized as what makes a true victor, so if your candidate
didn’t win your state, your vote was completely pointless. These sorts of soft suppression of votes through
the use of gerrymandering and the electoral college, along with actual voter suppression,
make it far easier for people and ideas that are statistically unpopular to continue to
remain in charge, or the law of the land. 2. Once Entrenched, A Regime Would Be Hard To
Remove Another big problem is that these days far
too many states, especially important swing states, are moving away from the safer and
more reliable paper systems of voting. While things like ballot stuffing can still
be done, with enough election observers it is really hard to get away with that sort
of thing. On the other hand, a clever enough computer
attack may not be noticed until much later; the security on our voting machines is terrible
and it may be difficult to prove that the totals were even changed. It doesn’t even require massive, country-wide
effort, as with the electoral college system in place, you just need to lock down a few
of the correct swing states. Once a dictatorial regime truly started to
become entrenched, it would not be hard for them to hack just a few machines in the right
place, to ensure at least a close victory, or the appearance of one. Some states could pass stricter laws to try
to prevent these issues, but as we said, it really doesn’t take a lot of states to swing
the election due to the electoral college and the fact that the popular vote is becoming
less and less meaningful. And the truth is, a regime like this would
not need to publicly say they now have a dictator and certainly wouldn’t benefit from doing
so — they could easily pretend to keep democracy for some time as they establish their power
even further, before anyone realizes just how bad things have become. 1. What If A President Lost A Close Election
And Chose Not To Step Down? Some on the Democratic side, such as Nancy
Pelosi, have started to wonder recently (as people have wondered about Obama, Bush, and
presidents past) if President Donald Trump will step aside if he loses a relatively close
election. Many believe that it is possible that he,
or some president in the future, could choose — especially with the temptation of the
increase of executive power — to attempt to simply say the election results are invalid,
and contest them as long as possible. Of course, such an action would almost certainly
end up before the Supreme Court, but if the court was friendly enough, they may rule in
a close election in favor of the incumbent. If the Supreme Court wasn’t friendly, the
president could attempt to pack the court claiming some kind of executive power, and
see just how far they could push things. Of course, all of this is more likely to happen
slowly, in front of you, with people pretending to like democracy the whole way through as
they destroy it and pound it to dust with their boot heel. The idea of something like martial law happening
is quite unlikely. While it would allow the president to suspend
the constitution, and order the military to pretty much control the country, it would
be unlikely the military would consider it a lawful order and obey, unless there was
actual civil war or deep civil unrest. Of course, in a situation where a president
who should have peacefully transitioned power chose not to, civil unrest could end up being
a huge issue, and then the president has in an to declare martial law — although for
the military to consider it a lawful order it would have to be very serious and prolonged
unrest to maintain a dictatorship. After that, the rest could be very ugly history,
and the term limit may not even need to be upended — after all, terms don’t matter
when you don’t have to worry about pesky things like a constitution. And, as long as the crisis and unrest continued,
that martial law — due to the state of national emergency — could go on indefinitely.

100 thoughts on “How Easily Could America Become a Dictatorship?

  • The problem with the state of the Supreme Court is that it was supposed to be built of justices who make decisions based upon what the Constitution says, but instead has become a group of politicians who make decisions based on what they want the constitution to mean.

  • This is EXACTLY what I have yelled to the high heavens for years. Did I like Bush senior YES he did what he said he would do and nothing more and I voted for him (I am a Proud Democrat BUT I still vote for the best person no matter the party) Bush Jr and Carter were 2 of the biggest joke I have ever seen and NO I did not vote for either of them. Mr Obama while not the best choice did do a decent job and his entire family were liked as a general rule. Now comes the new king trump who just plain flaunts each and every rule and standard of government, Making statements that his lieges think are the best thing since sliced bread while wasting more money and time than any person ever elected to the highest power in the country. And again his lieges don't have the balls to stand up to him. I always believed that the people we elected were to stand up for US the people that elected them NOT THE MONEY they were bought with. It is an unbelievable thing to think that someone would spend tens of millions of "donations" to take a job that pays just $400,000 per year. Do people really think that that person NO MATTER who they are or WHICH PARTY they represent is going to listen to anyone BUT THE PEOPLE THAT "GAVE THEM THE MONEY NO STRINGS ATTACHED"
    Thank you for the video I hope that people will take it to heart and listen to common sense while we still have a country and before it is divided up among the rich and powerful while leaving the rest of us the scraps to fight over

  • End the electoral college and you enact a dictatorship … When a few major cities elect every president every resident will be A Democrat…. After the war and uprising that is….

  • Bro. I like you. I like this channel (till now). I even gave you a pass on your pieces on “scary weapons”. You got mauled on your first attempt, then you revised it, and you were STILL WRONG. And you’re wrong about this one. I’M CALLING YOU OUT ON YOUR BS THIS TIME!! with the weapons, you had to do a lot of research that you didn’t do. This one however, all you needed to do was READ THE CONSTITUTION!! Read my previous comment. I’M CALLING YOU OUT. Name the date, time, and media we will debate on so I can educate you!!

  • Oh ya, no one is more apolitical and moderate as Ginsberg. And you got to be kidding me, voter suppression is rampant?!? And the electoral college is part of the problem?!? Read the federalist papers and learn something. I can’t tell if you really believe this stuff or are just being provocative.

  • ZERO PROBABILITY OF THIS.. There are too many armed citizens who will revolt. This is exactly why the 2nd amendment was written.

  • Do you know that Thomas Jefferson wrote that the 2nd amendment was also to make sure people had arms to go after the government if it became tyrannical?
    Also, I have duel Citizenship with Britain so I'd go to live with my family there.

  • The electoral college was designed to do what the Democrats claim they love, to support diversity and make
    sure the little guy counts.
    Isn't that what the Democrats claim they like?

  • If a dictatorship comes about, it will be due to the Democrats. Like the left everywhere, they feel no obligation
    to observe the rules if they don't like them anymore.

  • Change of government can be reduced to a couple of processes: ballot or bullet. The solution to "President for life" is to make sure that life is as short as possible!

  • We are NOT a Democracy! We are a Constitutional Republic! And will NEVER be a socialist country period! Over my dead body ][ ][ ][% Patriots Unite!

  • . Perhaps even worse than the electoral collage is the one vote per person system which locks in two party system. Where as a ranked voting would allow for independent parties/politicians not even in a party, to have a chance.

     I understand you want to be "fair" and "impartial" but if you want to be accurate, most of this is mostly republican parties fault. No way democrats would block all presidential nominees from a republican president. This is the ugly face of the new republican party. Most things you see the democratic party do, the new republican party did first. other things were attempts to get around republican obstructionism.

    How many times have the new republican party harmed the US by playing chicken with it's economy with blocking the "debt ceiling" nonsense? I think that whole debt ceiling nonsense should be abolished altogether.

    And your latter stuff shows the failings of Trump in general who has shown how much power the president already has, as he abuses it in such a corrupt way, how lacking there are on restrictions that prevent presidential corruption, how much of a honor system it has been this whole time.

  • Why do brits always think guns can just be confiscated? Dictatorial rules in America is impossible because of that pesky second amendment…

  • We get it Simon, you don’t like Trump. They said the same things about Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan, Clinton, etc…Don’t confuse America with you country…we are a democracy and always will be.

  • "Absolutism is a rule unconstrained by law or the wishes of others, though in reality absolutists rule with the support of some small group or elite."
    -Why Nations Fail
    Google insiders have admitted Google (among other big media companies) will interfere with the next Presidential election…..

  • The voting system in the US makes no sense to me. I come from a country where 1 person = 1 vote, surely that's the only real method of democracy? Everyone's vote is equal and the will of the people (assuming there is no ballot tampering) dictates the winning candidate.

  • Electoral College = one of the top 10 ideas the founding fathers came up with.
    If it wasn't for the Electoral College candidates could the focus all their attention and policies on only helping around 8 metro areas of the country to win a popular vote.
    This would be one of the worst things to happen since the Civil War as a particular part of the population could then set policies for those who have no real voice. And with the Senate running away with power from Congress as you say, it would make the problem even worse.

    With the current system of the electoral college candidates have to pay attention to even the smallest of areas of the country in order to collect all the points required to win.
    Is it a perfect system? No, of course not. But it is significantly better than a straight democracy. (Look it up straight democracies have worked about as well as socialist countries in the past. Though democracies tend to last a tad longer.)

    Now, if you want to say that Democrats "Super Delegates" are completely a control tool then you'd be correct. It's one of the many reasons that Bernie didn't run against Trump. (And I personally believe Bernie would have won that match, glad it didn't happen because he's a crazy hypocrite with 3 massive houses and millions of dollars he doesn't seem to want to give away and has refused to pay his staffers the $15 he has been preaching for the entire country.)

  • citizen's united didn't change anything. It merely reaffirmed 100 years of case law. People who don't like the ruling refuse to accept that it has always been the law of the land. People have always been free to do whatever they want with their money. People who don't like the ruling, don't care that Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was CLEARLY unconstitutional.

  • If you want to understand the problem, you don't need to look any further than the comment section of any video on a political, historical, economic, or international affairs topic. People are absolutely CONVINCED that their views are the only way, and people who see things differently are evil, they're trying to destroy the country, they support dictatorship, etc.
    When I manage conflict between people I supervise I've found that bringing in the opposing sides to meet, and forcing each side to basically just state what the other side believes, and what they want, and why they want those things, will get you most of the way to bridging any divide. Typically the first two or three 'attempts' by each side will result in massive straw manning of the opposition's side, dramatic exaggerations of what they actually want, and a complete and utter lack of effort to understand WHY others believe as they do. SPOILER ALERT They're not evil, and they're not trying to destroy this country. They see things differently than we do.
    After a few tries, after listening to what they're saying, after coming back with cooler heads if we need a break… We are more on the same side than we realize most of the time, and it's pretty cool to see people realize it. When each side has accurately stated where the other is coming from, the conflict basically has no more momentum, and the sides will hash out any differences.
    Every election I've ever voted in has seen the country "more divided than ever"… it just keeps getting worse. But it's not destiny. We can decide we value our strength and unity, and see the goodness in each other. We value those things more than we value clawing the other side's eyes out. Foreign propagandists do not get a vote in this. It can be hard to dial things back down. Will we succeed in mending our divisions? I don't know… I think it's possible although difficult! But goddamn it, history is going to record that at least we TRIED!

  • America is a Republic, not a Democracy. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. That is why we need the Electoral College. Without it four states (CA, TX, FL, and NY) would control the Executive branch. They contain 1/3 the population of America. The Electoral College means votes in Wyoming or Vermont matter too. It also means candidates need to listen to the concerns of the smaller states. Otherwise city dwellers control everything and many large cities are in shambles due to bad policy.

  • Most of examples listed here are the reason why we have the 2nd Amendment.

    And the Electoral College is our best defense against corrupt elections.

  • Your wrong. Ending the electoral college would make a dictatorship easier not harder. Ending the electoral college would concentrate power almost entirely at the east and west coasts. When you concentrate power you make it easier usurp. It's the reason it exists. The people in states like Missouri didn't want to be ruled.

  • Tyranny is Tyranny no matter what party they come from. Failure to resist and preserve the Republic will mean your life, literally. You think I'm joking or a conspiracy nut? yeah… tell that to every other person that fell under a dictator. Oh wait, you can't because they were murdered.

  • majority rule is just as bad if not worse then minority rule. the goal of the electoral college is to enable smaller states to have a voice while not letting the cities control the entire conversation. it works quite well and the only time the popular vote for the entire country is actually upended and not considered the winner is when the popular vote is relatively close, and the races are actually quite tight. this ensures an average of the populous based on state the state rather then the individual is the winner. your vote does matter and there are many instances where is a few more people actually voted a candidate that lost would have won and a candidate that would have won would lose. this is why trump won in the first place. the smaller more rural states voted for trump and the swing states that often do have relatively rural areas as well voted for trump.

  • oh attacking electronic voting, don't make me laugh, most voting machines require physical access and in such great numbers that it's impractical. Electronic voting is far more accurate and far more reliable then paper ballots that are easy to forge, change and otherwise manipulate in the favor of one party or the other. there are also other systems that ensure security and accessibility of the election like "vote by app" that can be implemented to use block chain and biometric data to ensure each individual is registered to vote and votes only once. this along with the relative ease of paying off observers to look the other way while you count fraudulent votes or change them, and the much more benign bad math and counting, electronic voting is far more reliable and safe then it's critics would have you believe. not to mention that "vote by app" allows you to open the voting window much earlier and keep it open much longer and inform the voter about the politics of each individual candidate and the proposed referendums. these can be written in a non-biased manor and require the reading of the entire referendum and all relevant materials before voting on it. but as the politicians will say, an informed voter is a dangerous voter.

  • This guy cannot really know anything about American political history, or he would not make the stupid claims he advances concerning the nature of the Cabinet and the history of the Supreme Court, and the powers and controversies involving the Senate he does; because he would personally know better.

    The closest the US ever came to a dictatorship was arguably under the well-meaning Lincoln and not so well-meaning FDR; with the suspension of habeas corpus and imposition of martial law in areas not under actual rebellion (and the arrest of an SC judge being mooted) in the case of Lincoln, or the threatening of the press for not supporting his economic policies in the case of FDR.

    And for those to whom it has never occurred that one may have an administrative tyranny, I suggest they look up the SC case Wickard v Filburn, 1942.

    The left has been pushing for a dictatorship of the collective for years, which cannot be news to anyone who has bothered to look around. They imagined that they had it with the election of "The One". Not quite, not yet.

    Finally, it should be noted that democracy is a proper process element of a worthwhile constitutional polity dedicated to individual rights and liberties; and not its synonym.

  • Americans changed after Obama. He brought us back to a comfortable way of life. Now people want entertainment Stupid but true. To be leader needs to be educated and Trump isn't

  • What needs to be mentioned is none of this is unprecedented in the history of the US. The size of the US supreme court has been changed 5 times, and Roosevelt tried to change the number of justices to 15. The filibuster is also new, it wasn't really used until the 70s, when it was abused to such a degree that now it basically means you need a 60% majority to pass anything, basically giving the Senate minority veto power.
    The US was a single party for all intents and purposes for the last half of the 19th century, and a substantial portion of people weren't allowed to vote until very recently.

  • the damned presidency is ALREADY 'above the law' in practice!
    i don't think a country this size should continue to have one powerful figurehead in the future-
    we need representation not 'leadership'

  • How can American people say to much foreign people will ruin America wen all but natives are from a foran land ???👅👅💯fact

  • Simple. If it reaches a stage the people have all "freedoms" on paper but very little actual influence over who rules over them and nobody speaking on their behalf then it will be dictatorship wearing a garb of democracy. It's amazing how so many Americans are groomed into thinking they have the "freedom" to help themselves(!) from their unfortunate situation in life. Too many gullible suckers is the first step to a dictatorship.

  • The problem of money in politics started way before Citizens United. It was Buckley v. Valeo (1976) that declared that political bribery was a form of “free speech” protected by the 1st Amendment.

  • In Civilization 1 and 2, just select revolution to create anarchy and then choose dictator when the list of options comes up in a few turns. (Next turn If America built the Pyramids)

  • Electoral College is the only reason small states have a say abolishing would eventually erode the states rights as the Executive branch would grab power and not have to worry about the small states. New york and California have a extremely suspect voting record and could rig a majority by themselves almost.

  • We get it! America sucks! How's your queen doing Simone? How's the UK history Simon? Do you feel better when bashing the US?

  • As a Brit Subject seems to forget that the US is a Republic not a Democracy . The Electoral Collage was design to prevent dictatorship by the Majority ie a large population controlling a small population look at the behavior and actions of the State of California where coastal wealth cities control the less populated interior Farm population. As a Brit Subject of the Queen / State , there have very few rights of person.and those rights can be taken away without or suppressed with little to no due process.

  • This video seems to be written by the liberal soft left who want the same policies as the EU. For once we have a hard line President since Reagan. And if States ran by democrats don't like it then they can leave the union.

  • Democrats want to get rid of the electoral college, pack the supreme court with extreme leftists, want to ban guns, silence political opponents. So im sure that the Democrats are the most likely to try to start a dictatorship

  • Why would you put out this video with Trump in office? If he spends half the time YouTube that he does on Twitter then he might get ideas…

  • Funny how the draining of the swamp hasn't translated into more freedom. Instead, we have trade wars escalating the prices of everything and continued erosion of freedom; heck come October we won't even be able to travel by air to another state without a passport!

    Some call him Trump. I call him White Obama. Same s*it different colored tie. I defy anybody with the mental disease that manifests itself by blind support of one or the other to present a cogent argument otherwise; one that does not use the words "liberal" or "conservative" either.

  • @9:18 ???? You're funny, you always bring up some crazy things to compare too. Jim Crow, the way you say it is funny, so low and serious, I wonder if people in Great Britain even get that comparison, I dont think so.

  • The electoral college actually seems to be getting more skewed toward large populations rather than less. In the 1788 election of George Washington, Delaware had about 8% of the population of Virginia but got 30% of the number of electors. In the last election, Delaware had about 12% of the population of Virginia but got about 23% of the number of electors. The US has a federal government, but unlike most federations, the member states do not have an equal vote. Initially, Virginia was by far the most populous state (more than twice the population of New York), and the electoral college was a way to give it more than an equal say, without its dominating the rest of the federation by virtue of its enormous population (nearly 19% of the US population lived in Virginia).

    There was no intention to elect the president by popular vote. The intention was a compromise so that large states got a somewhat greater say than the smaller states, rather than each state having an equal vote, but nowhere near in proportion to their populations. This creates a system where the federation tends to negotiate compromises that somewhat benefit all of the states, rather than a few large states simply getting what they want without any need to consider the impact on the smaller states. And the population is more concentrated now than it was back then.

    At this point, there are many smaller states and relatively few large states, so it is very unlikely that the electoral college will be eliminated. It would require the consent of all but, at most, twelve states. If anything, we are more likely to increase the number of Senators to three per state, restoring some of the initial balance between states in the electoral college. A collection of 38 smaller states, fearful of the imbalance of the very few large states, could much more easily push that through.

    The "swing state" phenomenon shows the problem that is solved by gerrymandering. The game theory behind gerrymandering is challenging. Powerful politicians get secure districts, but in general the party in power wants to increase the number of districts that vote for them. To do this, they need to create the barest majority in as many districts as possible, spreading their voters thinly to make each of their votes count maximally. Conversely, if they have to create opponent-majority districts, they will try to bunch opponents' votes together in as few districts as possible. But this advantage tends to be short-lived. All of their bare-majority districts become "swing" districts, subject to being shifted by changing the minds of relatively few voters, whereas the opponents' few dense districts become safe districts for them. Every so often (generally every decade), the system is rebalanced. The problem with states is that they don't rebalance, except through migration, so only a relatively few states end up with the close political margins that make them likely to influence elections. So while many districts become potential swing districts as a result of gerrymandering, only a few states tend to be swing states. Anti-gerrymandering rules tend to create, in general, far safer districts for whichever side ends up in power, making attracting voters less important. States tend to end up as one-party states (i.e. not swing states) where the political decision is really made at the party level, since the opposing party tends to have no real hope.

    The best answer to gerrymandering I have seen is proportional representation, such as that proposed by Lani Guinier (a Clinton nominee for assistant attorney general in 1993). Such a system is often used by corporations to elect board members so that significant minority factions can be assured a seat. The problem with that system in politics is that the representatives are all "at-large" representatives, they represent factions but not regions. This ignores the fact that communities tend to be built in a geographic location rather than "at large" (although this may be changing, with telecommunications advances). People in a given region want a representative who will represent them, even if they disagree about what party that representative should be from. Most people are most affected by local policies rather than by overall policy (e.g. will the highway come near our town). Indeed, the main objection to gerrymandering appears to be that the shape of the resulting districts often make no geographical sense. Proportional representation removes any notion of geographical sense. But if you don't want gerrymandering, it is hard to come up with a better alternative (i.e. one that makes politicians as interested in serving as many voters).

  • You were correct when you stated that Trump used his presidential powers to build the wall needed to be challenged, but you were incorrect when you stated that a president could use this same presidential powers to ban guns. The wall isn't in our constitution, owning a weapon is in our constitution. And suspending our constitutional would take way more than a few illegal aliens coming over the southern border looking for jobs.

  • People often complain about the supposed tyranny of the minority seem totally apathetic towards the tranny on the majority. Keeping the power of the majority in check was a major issue when forming the constitution and the concern needs more awareness today. It is the very reason that we have a bicameral legislature. Note the states have the same sway in forming the congress as they do the Presidency.(Electoral votes are determined by the number of congressmen each state has)

  • America is NOT a democracy…. It's a constitutional republic…. A pure democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. However some Americans seem to want to be socialist… Just ask hitler, Stalin, Mao, pol pot, etc. how well it works out….the list goes on…. Sadly now.. Murica is all polarized and politicized, thus dividing and preventing any real solutions.

  • one point you forgot, squirrel head keeps sacking anyone in the white house who's against him! he treats the white house like celebrity apprentice!

  • The electoral college is to prevent voter suppression and ballot stuffing do a little research on why there is a electoral college

  • Well, we already have an oligarchy so it isn't a far fetched notion. Frankly I'm surprised that it hasn't become a dictatorship sooner.

  • Most of these are fine. Gerrymandering is an issue, but Electoral College is not outdated. So we get a few cities controlling water resources and voting outcomes? This is a democratic republic not a true democracy. Each state gets its own representation which includes elections.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *