▲ 113 ▼ How should the American people structure the government to prevent another Trump-like president (or worse) from ever getting elected as president in the future? (lemmy.world) submitted 10 months ago by AfterNova@lemmy.world to c/progressivepolitics@lemmy.world 54 comments fedilink hide all child comments How do we structure the government to prevent a another nutcase president from being elected?
[+] AshMan85@lemmy.world 17 points 10 months ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Asafum@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago (1 child) Isn't it like... the exact reason... the electoral college exists? Like... "Hey dumb shit voters, we don't trust you to not be deceived by a conman populist piece of shit, so we're going to have an elector make the final call whether the one you voted for should actually be allowed to win." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 11 points 10 months ago Yes, but the electoral college has basically never functioned in that manner. People rightly argued that they should get what they vote for, thus electors in most states are legally bound to vote for the winning candidate. There should be a role against winner take all. All of California doesn't vote Dem and all of Texas doesn't vote fascist. A proportional electoral college would have a more center left leaning. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Rothe@piefed.social 8 points 10 months ago No, the current system enabled him, because it doesn't take partisanship into account. The fabled checks and balances of the US constitution was created in a fantasy world where people of the same political party was meant to forget about that partisanship in favour of the plight of their office. Actual realistic constitutions do not do that. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Asafum@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago (1 child) Isn't it like... the exact reason... the electoral college exists? Like... "Hey dumb shit voters, we don't trust you to not be deceived by a conman populist piece of shit, so we're going to have an elector make the final call whether the one you voted for should actually be allowed to win." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 11 points 10 months ago Yes, but the electoral college has basically never functioned in that manner. People rightly argued that they should get what they vote for, thus electors in most states are legally bound to vote for the winning candidate. There should be a role against winner take all. All of California doesn't vote Dem and all of Texas doesn't vote fascist. A proportional electoral college would have a more center left leaning. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] phdepressed@sh.itjust.works 11 points 10 months ago Yes, but the electoral college has basically never functioned in that manner. People rightly argued that they should get what they vote for, thus electors in most states are legally bound to vote for the winning candidate. There should be a role against winner take all. All of California doesn't vote Dem and all of Texas doesn't vote fascist. A proportional electoral college would have a more center left leaning. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Rothe@piefed.social 8 points 10 months ago No, the current system enabled him, because it doesn't take partisanship into account. The fabled checks and balances of the US constitution was created in a fantasy world where people of the same political party was meant to forget about that partisanship in favour of the plight of their office. Actual realistic constitutions do not do that. permalink fedilink source parent