So a president elected by a minority of Americans will nominate for a life long mandate a judge that will be able to...

I think it's fair that small states have relative big power electing the next leader. It will be unfair if only 3 or 4 states chose the next president and the 40 other states can't do shit about.

A republic just means you aren't a monarchy. A democracy means people can vote.

But you don't let anyone run their own country the way they want.

Americans get so defensive when people criticize their government. Very thin skin.

>You run YOUR country, let us run ours.
Shame that the US itself never likes to operate under that maxim.

Attached: usa imperialism.jpg (608x886, 203K)

You don't get it - California's vote total was so lopsided that it is STATISTICALLY-IMPROBABLE that the vote tally was accurate. A 61%-31% margin is NOT realistic. Therefore, we have to conclude that the vote in California was fraudulent. Fraudulent results have to be discarded from the overall total. That's how statistics work.

Attached: Election results.jpg (1423x848, 232K)

I think it's fair that the majority rules. Regions, provinces, cities, those don't have opinions. Only people should have a say in government, and then under the principle of "one man, one vote", with every vote counted as equal, no matter where it comes from.

Things where no better when France, Spain and England take turns to rule the world.

Meh...
The one man one vote did not intend to include woman and foreign born.

We’re not a republic either. Right now we can be best defined as an oligarchy/theocracy.

>The one man one vote did not intend to include woman and foreign born.
What? "One man, one vote" is just a slogan, it isn't a specific policy. In Norway when it was used it was to gain universal sufferege. In South Africa it probably meant something different. It has never meant just one single model.

>Just ignore our most populous and influential state because I can't stop sperging over rural boomers

Now the thing is, Ruth Bader Ginsberg resisted retiring while Obama was president in the assumption that Hillary would get elected and then she could step down and be replaced by a young far left judge (the Republicans in Congress kept Obama from appointing judges as left wing as Ginsberg--Sotomayer and Kagan are not nearly as extreme as she is).

Hillary being president would have been absolutely catastrophic because as soon as she took office, Ginsberg, Breyer, and Kennedy would have all retired allowing her to appoint young, radical left judges to the Supreme Court who'd be on the bench for the next 30-40 years. Imagine three young Ruth Bader Ginsbergs on the bench. America as we know it would have collapsed into a flaming heap of rubble and we'd never recover from it.

Since Trump got elected instead, their calculations got thrown all out of whack and now we have two conservative judges appointed, likely a third if Ginsberg dies. That will leave only two liberal judges on the court and creates the possibility of overturning Roe vs Wade and other tantalizing opportunities down the road.

Now the thing is, Ruth Bader Ginsberg resisted retiring while Obama was president (even thought some Democrats urged her to) in the assumption that Hillary would get elected and then she could step down and be replaced by a young far left judge (the Republicans in Congress kept Obama from appointing judges as left wing as Ginsberg--Sotomayer and Kagan are not nearly as extreme as she is).

Hillary being president would have been absolutely catastrophic because as soon as she took office, Ginsberg, Breyer, and Kennedy would have all retired (on top of the seat vacated by Scalia's death) allowing her to appoint young, radical left judges to the Supreme Court who'd be on the bench for the next 30-40 years. Imagine four young Ruth Bader Ginsbergs on the bench. America as we know it would have collapsed into a flaming heap of rubble and we'd never recover from it.

Since Trump got elected instead, their calculations got thrown all out of whack and now we have two conservative judges appointed, likely a third if Ginsberg dies. That will leave only two liberal judges on the court and creates the possibility of overturning Roe vs Wade and other tantalizing opportunities down the road.

Here it takes a 10 year education to become a judge. (4 year legal master education + the best cum laude students can apply to judges for a 6 year follow up education)
After which the current judges will put you forward to the King, who will appoint you.

Prosecutors follow the same education path.

>Right now we can be best defined as an oligarchy/theocracy.

www.berniesanders.com is that way, pal. ---->

Do you consider the Muslim ghetto known as London to be part of Britain?

Earth to stupid guy. The United States is a federal system, not a centralized one like in Sweden where all power flows out of Stockholm.

And blame the doofus Republicans back in 1993 for allowing RBG to happen in the first place. You can find the confirmation hearings on Youtube; they sat there making dumb jokes and asking no serious questions to what would become the most left wing USSC Justice in history. Here is a woman who's outright said the Constitution is an outdated document written by 18th century bourgeois white guy landowners and it can be reinterpreted however we like.

So like Germany or Australia, neither of which have retarded systems of minority rule.

Their political system actually comes from ours, during republican times.
Our senate gets picked by the states (provinces in our case).

>A 61%-31% margin is NOT realistic.
You really underestimate how liberal California is.

Yes indeed I would prefer NYC and LA to control every election at the expense of 75% of the country.

Attached: f90f9-9.jpg (581x382, 54K)

The United States is a country ran by the wealthy with 2 parties (one reactionary, one conservative) who use as many smoke and mirror tactics to ensure that nothing actually happens unless it benefits the wealthy. The parties pit citizens against each other which draws their attention away from the real enemy (the parties themselves).

With 1 vote = 1 vote you certainly won't have LA or NYC outvoting the majority.
In fact, you'd probably have ten more new parties gaining real power.

IIRC the Founders based the US governmental structure partially on French Enlightenment ideas and cobbling together bits and pieces of whatever European political systems they liked. The Dutch Republic possibly provided some inspiration and also of course English common law.

75% of the geographical landmass =/= 75% of the population.
The majority of the land in red states is completely unpopulated wilderness.

If only there was a system where each vote contributed towards the government instead of majorities within arbitrary gerrymandered areas.

The majority of people in red states are also completely uneducated and ignorant of almost everything.

>In fact, you'd probably have ten more new parties gaining real power.
That's a bit of a crock though because political differences from state to state vary considerably anyway; for example, a New York Republican is rather unlike a Kansas Republican.

>Earlier philosophers whose work influenced the Enlightenment included Bacon, Descartes, Locke, and Spinoza
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment#Significant_people_and_publications
>Descartes, locke and spinoza all lived in the Netherlands during our republican times..
ah yes, the """"french"""" enlightenment.

This is your brain on CNN

Since electoral votes are apportioned out by the population of a state, it works out in the end anyway that large, high population states have more weight.

I live in a red state, and my father is the most stereotypical ignorant american you can imagine. He's not stupid or anything, but he's been brainwashed past recovery.

And you think the Maxine Waters tier liberals in NY and LA aren't brainwashed?

I know, I know. He's not as smart as enlightened transsexual studies majors like ourselves.

>it's better that random swing states hold power instead of the wealthiest and most populated states

It's been a while since high school history class, so...meh. Anyway, I do know that Thomas Jefferson was the big Frenchboo and he almost certainly knew about the French Enlightenment.

It's the same here. I'm not sure if the results would be fundamentally different though.
In the USA all political parties unite under the banner of the Democrats or Republicans.
While here we have 13 political parties in parliament, who then after the elections form coalitions to rule. Effectively turning 4 parties into 1 ruling coalition.

Although this could lead to less feminist influence on the left wing for example, if they become less popular. Or more liberal or alt right influence on the democrats.

Did I say that? I literally just made a post detailing that both parties distract the population by blaming each other instead of actually doing shit. Blue states are slightly better at best since they don't want public shootings and usually have an acceptable education budget.

Shouldn't you be bombing bongs on the street?

>on the democrats
I mean on the republicans.

Ronald Reagan for example was the classic California Republican, which means he was staunchly conservative on economic matters and hated communism, but relatively liberal/libertarian on social issues because CA has always been a socially liberal state since frontier times.

Blue States are the most fiscally irresponsible and poorly governed in the union. Look at CA and IL - they're on the verge of bankruptcy, while Texas, Florida and a lot of Midwestern states are booming.

>Blue states are slightly better at best since they don't want public shootings
Meanwhile, places like Chicago and Baltimore where one can't find a Republican under a rock have some of the nation's highest homicide rates.
>and usually have an acceptable education budget.
Yes, all those useful feminism majors who can't do anything with their degree except get a job with the Democrat Party.

>hur dur democracy
>3 million of spics with license drive can vote in California.
He won.

>ctrl+f
>"democratic republic"
>0 results

jesus christ

You can't get a license or ID without proving you're a citizen via birth certificate/social security #
If they have a license/ID/social security, then they're American citizens.
Also I find it ironic that bizarro Spain is talking about spics

You do realise that the whole "take guns away from people" thing doesn't work unless it happens to everyone, right? Being able to drive into another state with a firearm kinda ruins that.
>useful feminism majors
Not sure exactly what you're trying to say here. There are a lot of useless things you can study.
>get a job with the Democrat Party
Being a politician should not be a career, but it's too late to change that now.

+$0.05 have been deposited to your Exxon Mobile account

>Red states are the enlightened ones!
t.

Attached: ebic.jpg (565x428, 41K)

California is Mexican clay

What's your point? I could show you a pic of some pink haired tranny or some poor Black/Hispanic to show you the average Dem voter?

Except no one's denying that dem voters are mostly queers, you on the other hand are actually suggesting that the south being filled to the brim with white trash is propaganda.
This is your average political """debate""" in america: youtube.com/watch?v=RJeugIJFXas&t=0s&index=5&list=PLU0-mGUCwaMc-rRTe8L0pTMn582rZa_Mp

Who hurt you, Sheamus?

pollmill.com/f/what-is-the-size-of-yi-yun-seon-s-nipple-uqkq1fn/answers/new.html

Based Nip

>exclude a state of 40-50million because you dont like their politics

utter brainlet, this sort of shit mindset is exactly the same as the left

if they live in your country they have the right to play a part in deciding how its run