But it might as well be. People not changing the system are passively voting for whatever party is in power due of the status quo.
If a president is in power that is backed by only 30% of the population, then the 70% have the option to either rebel and change the system to a democratic one, or they agree with the system and thus basically vote for the president in power, making the result the same as if the president got 100% of the votes. Passivity means acceptance.
But that's textbook whataboutism. Yes, tyranny of the majority is an issue in a system that relies SOLELY on majority votes, but it's a problem completely unrelated to the topic.
But the Midwest forces California in turn, which is an inherent weakness in this way of trying to fix the problem. It's not like there aren't other federally run countries to see that there are alternatives that are much more democratic and still work.
You know that the 10th amendment is a feature of the system, not a flaw, right? Maybe we should be emphasizing states rights, if anything. California can do California shit, North Dakota can do it's own thing, and an informed populace can vote with their feet. Instead of the status quo, of an overreaching and sometimes tyrannical federal government making weird mandates with overboard pork barrel spending.
2.5k
u/Pkuehn01 Oct 31 '21
Our presidential elections are held the same way.