|
|
|
|
|
|
by yucky
1437 days ago
|
|
|
>You are thinking federalism vs anti-federalism. Nope. At least not exclusively. The party's change over the years but we have essentially always had one party pushing for more direct democracy, and one party pulling against. A rose by any other name is still rose, but the philosophical idea of Republic government vs Democrat government is always there. And it's the key difference in the two parties. >I don't see any evidence of this in modern politics. Which democrat has mentioned implementing a direct democracy? The entire State of California is constantly riddled with ballot propositions, which is direct democracy in many case overturning the work done by their own representative legislature. And California is essentially a one party state so there is no one else to share the blame. Federally, I can't go a week without reading about yet another proposal to eliminate the Electoral College and use a popular vote for President. So if you're not seeing any evidence of it, where are you looking? |
|
|
Ya, I was thinking federally only. California is its own animal and they do put a lot of things to vote, so you certainly are right with this example.
>Federally, I can't go a week without reading about yet another proposal to eliminate the Electoral College and use a popular vote for President.
That's just people complaining when their candidate doesn't win. If their candidate won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote, they wouldn't let out a peep about it I'll bet. Democrats won't actually remove the electoral college because they use superdelegates to ensure the party can put its thumb on any candidate's scale (see Bernie v Clinton and Bernie v Biden).
>So if you're not seeing any evidence of it, where are you looking?
I'm talking about actual politicians proposing actual legislation and recruiting votes in the senate/house, not just lip service from the stump. They don't do it because it doesn't actually benefit them.