Absolutely not. I was answering in response to your mention of a direct democracy. And, I merely pointed out some noteworthy points that I saw in what you posted about it.
Yes, I did end it with a challenging statement. But that is the point of contesting something.
And yes, there are different forms of democracy, some that are very dangerous to the very people it claims to "empower". Socialist democracy, such as is on the rise here in the US right now, being one of them that is dangerous.
But. That's a whole different argument and I don't want to distract.
The point is. You brought up Direct Democracy. I made two points about it. The last arguing why this country isn't under a direct democracy, it is a republic.
So. In argument to this not being a republic, I will simply direct anybody to review the national anthem.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by catholictigerfan

Member since Oct 2009

60084 posts

Posted on 8/3/26 at 11:02 am to RFK

Fraudulent ballots in blue states would ramp up if it was based on the popular vote.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by Fat Bastard

alter hunter

Member since Mar 2009

92194 posts

Posted on 8/3/26 at 12:49 pm to RFK

ran away after starting another dumbass thread eh tranny lover?

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by The Pirate King

Pangu

Member since May 2014

69634 posts

Posted on 8/3/26 at 1:09 pm to RFK

quote:
Con: It would reduce the relative influence of less-populous states, potentially causing candidates to focus almost exclusively on large urban population centers.

"Con - the biggest urban areas (that always skew one direction) would decide every presidency forever"

Seems like quite a con and one outweighing whatever pros you can conjure.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by DTRooster

Belle River, La

Member since Dec 2013

9132 posts

Posted on 8/3/26 at 1:30 pm to RFK

The only Pro is if you are ok with being ruled by inner city degenerates and leeches. Hard pass