Be America

Actually our Presidential system has been studied and proven globally throughout history to always end in internal collapse and revolution because no single branch can claim sole electoral legitimacy, and if there is a conflict new snap elections cannot be called to then create a governing majority. It's why most other nations on Earth have a Parliamentary system with a PM instead.

Read this:
businessinsider.com/juan-linz-and-threats-to-american-democracy-2016-11
scholar.harvard.edu/files/levitsky/files/mainwaring_shugart.pdf

Attached: Juan+Linz’s+critique_+Presidential+executives+are+inherently+less+stable.jpg (960x720, 128K)

>improving an outdated system means tearing it down
Why are conservatives so retarded?
Why are their small brains only capable of thinking in extremes?

To any retard claiming the system should remain the same answer me this: why does Wyoming, a state with barely over half a million people, need two senators? Texas has over 60 tines the population. California has nearly 80 times the population. How does Wyoming having two senators make any sense?

It's rather that the Senate needs to be dissolved or rules need to be put in place to merge less populated states. Only a retard would be incapable of seeing that

because you give women the right to vote fucking white male¡¡ and now you are being blacked white boy

Holy fuck you should kys you fucking retarded autistic retard.

Godammit I hate retards.

Just to clarify, you're retarded.

Pretty sure you're trolling, but just in case you actually are an AmCit who doesn't understand -- the senate is supposed to represent States' interests against the Federal government. It specifically has nothing to do with population. That is what the House of Representatives are for -- they *represent* the people, and they are determined per state by population.

Longest standing Democratic Republic since the greek city states, bitch.

Kill yourself you worthless waste of space, hopefully the next hurricane on your midget island does the world a favor.

You are assuming the same system which was implemented in the countries infancy works now. One of the key reasons for the Senate was distance. The people of a different state would not be too familiar with the issues of a different state so it was necessary the Senate was there to equally represent them. Now this is not as big of a deal because airplanes, television, the internet etc. has made communication through vast amounts of land much easier. Not to mention the country is not as divided by states as it was in the past.

Consider that Texas and California have nearly 70 million people yet they would get outvoted by Nebraska, Wyoming and Montana, three states that together don't even have 5 million people. There is no reason it should still be around today.

We're exceptional, fag. What do you think?

Attached: 11451234899944.jpg (1280x720, 244K)

The greek city states abandoned democracy though....

Attached: 1479863511476.jpg (608x397, 48K)

>You are assuming the same system which was implemented in the countries infancy works now.
I think it's fair to say that you are assuming the same system that has worked for hundreds of years doesn't work now. Distance is a barrier to familiarity, but eliminating the former doesn't grant you the latter -- regardless of airplanes and television, people in Texas know bumbfuck all about California other than that they're gay and hate freedom. Likewise, Californians think Texas is all about guns and oil. I don't agree that the country is "divided by states"; right now I think the main issue is hyperpartisanship driven by voices on social media.

It really depends on what you mean by "outvoted". The Federal government makes rules that States, of which there are only 50, follow. It's not rules that make "X million people in this area follow, and YY million people in this area follow", it is specifically a contract with States. Again, population doesn't matter -- that's the responsibility of the House. If you mean the electoral college, even then it's a good thing to avoid the tyranny of the commons -- it ensures that the President appeals to more disparate groups (I think you could reasonably even say "cultures") in America than just the top 20 biggest cities.

>then it's a good thing to avoid the tyranny of the commons
So instead you advocate for a tyranny of the minority? Because that's exactly what we have now.
Just because the system functions does not mean it still properly serves it's purpose. The founders could've never predicted a state like California or Texas. A minority has been given vast power over a majority. There is no concrete reason why this land of mass is a state and another mass of land is not a state. These designations where given by people and should be changed by people. States aren't countries like France and England so there is no historical basis for a state like Wyoming.

Which again brings me to my original question. Why should Wyoming be a state? Why do they deserve two senators?

>tyranny of the minority?
If anything, I'd say it's more apropos to say "tyranny of the plurality". Instead of favoring the group with the most numbers, it favors the most number of groups.

>Just because the system...
True.

>The founders could've never...
Maybe.

>A minority has been given...
I think really this is where we just aren't going to see eye to eye. "A" minority has not been given "vast power" over any majority, and this is on two accounts. Firstly, to reiterate, the senate doesn't represent population, it represents states -- in matters of interest to the Senate, Texas and California are representing 2 out of 50, not 67 million out of 325 million. Secondly, even if you wanted to frame population as having importance to the Senate (which it doesn't), then it's "multiple" minorities (not "A" minority) having greater influence, which is good; 51% of the population shouldn't really be able to have the authority to enslave the other 49%. Again, kind of irrelevant, because this is the Senate and not the House. I think it's an increasing trend of having the line of thought that absolutely everything that is decided democratically must have some direct tie to the individual citizen of the US, but that's really not what the founding fathers intended. The Senate is for the vested interest of the States as individual entities, and not as conglomerations of people. Finally, I wouldn't call it "vast power"

>There is no concrete...
No, it's definitely concrete, but I think you mean to say arbitrary. State lines are entirely historical, and they embodied, much as they still do today, the culture of the peoples they contain. I do agree that it's fair that some fashion of "redrawing" of State lines occur regularly to better reflect the cultures of their constituents.

>no historical...
Of course there is a historical basis. That's literally history. They're a State because at some point it made sense for them to be. It may still or may not be today.

But it is stable, user. It was made to be stable. That's why it has managed to last for over 200 years despite being in a perpetual decline, both political and socio-cultural. Of course, because of it's stability it's also impossible to fight it and stop the process, but it is definitely stable :)

Attached: 1544143350361.jpg (1070x348, 108K)

>it favors the most number of groups.
And those groups house a minority so it is tyranny of the minority.

>A" minority has not been given "vast power"
California has 39 million people and only two senators. Wyoming has 500k and two senators. No matter how you look at it a minority does hold more power.

>in matters of interest to the Senate, Texas and California are representing 2 out of 50
True but like I'm trying to point out Texas and California only represent 2/50 because of existing states lines that do not have a historical basis. To clarify what I mean, think a country. England is it's own nation with its own people, culture and history expanding centuries. None of these factors apply to most states. A person from Dallas would have more in common with a person from San Diego than with a rural Texan. States aren't the dividing factor between people, way of living is whether suburban, city, or rural.

>the senate doesn't represent population
>The Senate is for the vested interest of the States as individual entities, and not as conglomerations of people.
That's perfectly fine if the states are perfectly represented. Note how I never mention Alaska. Because while they may have 600k people they are so separated from the rest of the country they should be allowed to be a state to have their needs met. On the other hand S. Dakota and N. Dakota are next to each other. Neither with a huge population. Why do we need two of them? They where just made states after being territories. It might've made sense back then because of travel but the same isn't true today when communication is easier.

If the Senate is to remain state borders need to be changed. Otherwise sparsely populated land holds more power simply for being land.

>I do agree that it's fair that some fashion of "redrawing" of State lines occur regularly
That's what I want. Its remove the Senate or redraw the states. We'll just keep arguing so I'll stop here since we do have some common ground.

>democracy
>create the most stable system of government

You do realize that the only way for the government to work is for it to have only one political party, right? Democracy doesn't work because as long as there is another presence of another political party that opposes your opinion, you'll never get your new laws passed through. I don't choose democracy and I don't choose fascism. I choose the free markets because i can actually vote with my dollar for the things i want. No government will EVER offer you a worry free service at your own expense. The government is and will always be interested in protecting itself along with the people in power even if it means owning you as a slave.

The thing is that there are guys who have way more dollars than you and it's in their benefit to unite, cartelise and establish a monopolistic quasi-state where they can enshrine their economic advantage into law anyway. "Free market" solutions don't really work without intelligent government intervention. For that the government has to actually be independent, though.

>"Free market" solutions don't really work without intelligent government intervention

That's a very good joke you have there. Tell me more about how the government led to great inventions such as entertainment, uber, the smartphone and other consumer products. Tell me more about the shit that businesses have to go through due to the government regulating the free market.

Tell me more about how my taxes being used to bomb other people from the other side of the world is actually helping us. Oh and tell me how impossible it is for the government to become corrupt. I'd LOVE to hear that one.

>entertainment
what?
>uber
public roads
>smartphone
surveillance state

Oh, what's that? You can't tell me how the government was actually behind the idea of the automobile, the hot pocket, the television, the computer or the game console? Oh yeah that's right, you can't. You're a crony shill who only serves to suck neoliberal cock.

>be american
>my system is stable even if it got destroyed very quickly after birth
LOL

>the only way for the government to work is for it to have only one political party
Human societies have always been red vs blue because that’s usually how war works

>muh roads
People who want roads will pay for them.
>smartphone cameras being hacked by government
It's almost as if you haven't heard of VPNs or any kind of security app for that matter.

>Human societies have always been red vs blue because that’s usually how war works
That's a very infantile take on life. It's almost as if all of humanity's mistakes from making those kinds of choices didn't exist to you or something.

and so will america, when it eventually comes to its senses

>most stable system of government

add that one to the list of things burgers actually believe

>Thinking code that mobile devices executes is secure
kek. VPN apps won't help. Your phone's carrier and maker have backdoor into your phone's privileged execution.
Because it appeals to the political center, first past the post system of elections leads to a government that is the least extreme. The least likely to destroy a country's natural wealth. And we have the most naturally rich territory on Earth. Everyone wants what we have.

Attached: 1523834854017.jpg (707x490, 41K)

>most stable
Not by a fuckin longshot mate.
Its stable until the fuckin market crashes.
Because we made out system of government into a corporate pay for play system and now the only people who can get shit done want things to stay the same so they can keep profiting on their expensive quick fix bullshit they sell.

People will do some ridiculous shit if you brainwash them into thinking that they are living in a fascist dictatorship where the president is literally Hitler and genocides babies and that they're days away from being sent to a concentration camp. You ever looked into the eyes of a leftist? Gone. The lights are on but nobody's home.

youtube.com/watch?v=ILn85WKo0Qk

In case you've been blind and deaf for the past 10 years gridlock to the point of shutdown is how the government is inteded to work according to Republicans, turnabout is fair play and the Republicans didn't use the nuclear option

>Not knowing there are two houses in the legislative branch
Come on, user. You're better than this.

Any form of government. Whether it be a monarchy, a democracy, a republic, or a fucking oligarchy, will fall to its knees in defeat when confronted with an overwhelming influx of foreign peasants that share almost none of the ideals the founders of the system had.

simple as that.