+65

Elections shouldn't be about winning states, they should be about winning over people, amirite?

94%Yeah You Are6%No Way
yeahithoughtsos avatar Politics
Share
0 10
The voters have decided that yeahithoughtso is right! Vote on the post to say if you agree or disagree.
This user has deactivated their account.

Uh, are you saying case by case people? Because that's an awful idea.

Lens avatar Len Yeah You Are 0Reply
@Len Uh, are you saying case by case people? Because that's an awful idea.

No, this was actually more about the electoral college.

yeahithoughtsos avatar yeahithoughtso Yeah You Are 0Reply

We shouldn't have elections at all. Democracy isn't true freedom. The minority always loses.

@StickCaveman We shouldn't have elections at all. Democracy isn't true freedom. The minority always loses.

All true freedom will eventually progress to democracy. If only anarchy is true freedom, then soon enough, people will band together to get what they want, force other people to listen by something like class-action threats, and soon politics come into it and you have a democratic government. All people are created equal, thus the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

B10ckH34ds avatar B10ckH34d Yeah You Are 0Reply
@B10ckH34d All true freedom will eventually progress to democracy. If only anarchy is true freedom, then soon enough, people...

The "needs of the many" in which people usually vote on are usually controversial issues where half of the population could be 48% and the other half 52%. From a population of 311.5 million people, 149.52 million can't live free because of democracy. Gay marriage would have been "legalized" long ago if it weren't for democracy. Is it the "needs of the many" to keep homosexuals from having the same marriage rights as heterosexuals? Is it the needs of the many to keep marijuana illegal in many states?

I'm more of a libertarian than an anarchist but having an anarchy doesn't mean there won't be any rules or guidelines for society and it doesn't mean people can't band together to stop an unjustly cause against an unethical individual.

@StickCaveman The "needs of the many" in which people usually vote on are usually controversial issues where half of the...

For things like legalisation, there should still be democracy, but in a scaled down way. Like if there's no real harm (violating the sanctity of marriage is all in their heads, and cannabis has no more ill effects than any other pleasurable experience) then only 30% is needed. Or, adopt an 'if you don't like it, leave' policy. This is not favourable, but it will make more people happy in the long run. I don't mean leave the country, but if large numbers (not necessairly all) supporters can move to one or a few states (I think you guys have that, but this is if you don't), have gay marriage legalised democratically there, then gays across the country can travel there for a few days to get married.

Any attempt to make everyone happy will invariably result in failure, and/or be unethical on some level. Only with some form of government can things ever be stable. Democracy is the only form where the majority of each opinion are kept happy. We can't have countries splitting up over each decision because that would create differing ideologies and another Cold War. Bottom line: You can't have true freedom, peace and happiness all at the same time, unless someone is shortchanged.

B10ckH34ds avatar B10ckH34d Yeah You Are 0Reply
Please   login   or signup   to leave a comment.