Trump’s falsehoods — and what Democrats say is the threat he poses to democracy — have even some Democrats questioning whether their party should accept a loss in the Nov. 5 election.

While 19% of Republicans say Trump should reject the election results if he loses, 12% of Democrats say Kamala Harris should do the same if she loses.

  • School_Lunch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 month ago

    That’s a bit more than just math. When considering a policy, I don’t tend to take into account where the different parties stand. It’s better to think for yourself and not resort to tribalism. With that in mind I do think the majority should win 100% of the time. It has been insanely annoying here in the US how some policies have had popular support for years if not decades yet go nowhere because of small interest groups who use cheap tricks like the fillibuster and the electoral college to ensure the will of the minority wins out. I do acknowledge the danger of the tyranny of the majority, but I think protections against it should be provided by the rights outlined in a strong constitution.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Sortition is connected to population numbers, so it makes the weight of a vote in the majority equal to the proportion of that majority, and same with minorities. It can’t be compared to electoral college and filibuster.

      It also is one way to kill the degenerate dominance of two major parties.

      Also majorities are slow to change, and it’s simply dishonest (and destabilizing) to have one’s vote weigh less depending on which group they are part of.

      I see where you are coming from in the context of the US, but our world had a democracy that took will of the majority to the absolute, it took just a couple of years for it to turn into dictatorship. Then after like 60 years that system (which never died on paper) was resurrected, with not the best results either. That’d be Soviets.

      Well, and there are many countries around frankly with “good enough” (in year 1999) political systems, which don’t seem good enough anymore.

      • School_Lunch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        30 days ago

        “Also majorities are slow to change, and it’s simply dishonest (and destabilizing) to have one’s vote weigh less depending on which group they are part of.”

        It doesn’t. Just because you are a part of the minority doesn’t make your vote count less. It just means there are more people who disagree with you than agree.

        I’d say countries that devolve into dictatorship aren’t due to too much democracy but due to weak constitutional protections.

        Right now in the US we are in danger of devolving into a dictatorship because of the extra weight added to minority votes.

        Edit: and by minority votes I’m talking about policies with less than 50% support.

        • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          30 days ago

          It doesn’t. Just because you are a part of the minority doesn’t make your vote count less.

          If your group’s percentage is 45% and the chance of its common position becoming reality is less than 45%, which it is with voting as opposed to sortition, it is.

          It just means there are more people who disagree with you than agree.

          More people disagreeing with me than agreeing doesn’t mean that they should always have their way (because there’s more of them) and I never. It means that proportionally to our numbers sometimes they should have their way and sometimes I mine.

          This is simply closer to the real wishes of the voters. And that can be delivered by sortition.

          Edit: and by minority votes I’m talking about policies with less than 50% support.

          And I’m saying that that minority-supported policies should pass proportionally to that minority. 20% percent minority included, for example.

          If you are afraid of what that 20% percent will make you do if their representatives get up through sortition - well, shouldn’t give any central government the ability to hurt you that much.

          • School_Lunch@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            30 days ago

            I think we are talking about two different things. I’m talking about individual policies, and I think you are talking about elected representatives. I do agree that percentages of representatives should match the population, but votes on individual policies should always match what the majority of the population wants.

            • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              29 days ago

              Eh, no. What good then are the percentages of representatives?

              The whole point is that policies should average to matching what the average citizen wants. Not the majority.

              It’s fair - sometimes the majority gets their way and the minority has to obey. Sometimes other way around. With frequency according to percentages.

              That’s the point. Actual power to make decisions should be balanced by representation of positions in the society. Not held by majority.