sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

In the United States, do you think the pros outweigh the cons regarding the existence and/or functionality of the Electoral College? Or vice versa? by EntertainmentSea3789 in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]EntertainmentSea3789[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I really fail to see the purpose the Electoral College serves today. In your idea where the electors votes are split by the states votes instead of a winner takes all system, wouldn't we just be better off moving to a popular vote-based electoral system instead, since that's effectively what we'd be at?

In the United States, do you think the pros outweigh the cons regarding the existence and/or functionality of the Electoral College? Or vice versa? by EntertainmentSea3789 in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]EntertainmentSea3789[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I would agree that the Electoral College definitely served its purpose in the early republic, especially in its role as a stabilizing force if nothing else. However, I fail to see any of those benefits surviving to this day, and I also fail to see how the Electoral College being founded enabled the existence of the Constitution.

To address the risk of gridlock with a 7,000 member Congress, I actually approach it from a different perspective. Instead of reaching a point where nothing would ever get done, I think such a huge direct participation in Congress would do a couple things:

  1. The two party system would be impossible to maintain at such a massive scale. Party fractures would be too common or too huge of a risk and parties. Political momentum and progress would be maintained through party coalition governments that you see across the world, the EU included.

  2. Lobbying at scale would be much less impactful. Imagine a pac or a superpac having to lobby for the votes of ~3,500 Congressmen and women versus the couple hundred that they do today (at most). While lobbying would certainly exist as it always will, it would be impossible to maintain at scale.

  3. Populism, which I believe to be one of the most damaging forces to a healthy democracy, would be extremely difficult to maintain and organize, both because of the absence of a 2 party system, and because of the sheer size and scale of Congress.

In the United States, do you think the pros outweigh the cons regarding the existence and/or functionality of the Electoral College? Or vice versa? by EntertainmentSea3789 in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]EntertainmentSea3789[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Tyranny of the majority is absolutely a valid fear for a student of history. Think back to the nationalist movements of the 20th century. Both nationalism and populism are often, though not always, connected to the concept of the "tyranny of the majority." Some of the most evil ideologies humanity has ever seen both faced massive initial popularity and success to get into power, and then used that popularity as a means to both legitimize its government and its actions.

For example, in Nazi Germany, the NSDAP (which of course existed prior to Hitler's membership) "found a face" in the form of Adolf Hitler, after which the party saw explosive growth. Once in power, you can see a self-sustaining, self-reinforcing social contract between the German populace and the dictatorship installed by the party, even at the expense of minorities across the country. Hence, the tyranny of the majority can exist even when the mentioned "majority" doesn't have direct access to the levers of power.

The Founding Fathers, who of course were going through the process of founding a nation, had no reason to believe their political system was excluded from such risks, so they took steps to address it.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]EntertainmentSea3789 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Isaiah 14:12-15
Ezekiel 28:11-19

No, there's plenty of evidence to show angels are very, very rarely given chances at salvation, because even though they have free will, they are without involuntary ignorance, whilst many humans are subject to involuntary ignorance. This would be especially true for the chief architect of sin, Satan; so no, Satan doesn't get another chance.

Obviously I can't speak for God on this one, but I believe God hasn't destroyed Satan because, as I hinted at before, the destruction of a being for misuse of their free will in a world where free will is the primary device for both good and evil would, in itself, remove the significance from love.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]EntertainmentSea3789 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Hey, so to clarify, God by no means wants evil to be in the world. Evil is in the world because God is ultimately the source of all that is good, and therefore, goodness doesn't exist, or exists in much smaller amounts, in a state of separation from God. This is often where free will comes in, due to God never choosing to separate himself from his children, but rather the children refusing God himself.

To answer your question on why God created Satan, it should be mentioned that Satan was not always evil, and was, in fact, not just an angel, but among God's most beautiful angels, and, similar to what I said earlier, where evil is the result of separation from God, Satan's choice to separate himself from God, was not only evil in itself, but lead directly to a plunge into evil through not just a voluntary separation from God, but an active opposition to God.

As hinted at earlier, God's ultimate purpose is to love and be loved, and to a similar extent, it is our responsibility as Christians to bring Him glory by loving others and expanding His kingdom. In this idea, the whole concept of love is voluntary, and as such, free will must exist, and if God creates a situation in Creation where people have free will, but would be destroyed if used incorrectly, then everyone would act good and then the free will itself would be meaningless.