“Deadlock” is the excuse that your party makes when they only pass laws for billionaires.
What happens if majority of Americans vote for one party and majority of states vote for the other? Would there indefinite deadlock between the [Executive + House of Representatives] vs [The Senate]?
Submitted 1 year ago by WtfEvenIsExistence@reddthat.com to [deleted]
Comments
Grumble@lemmy.world 1 year ago
TootSweet@lemmy.world 1 year ago
When it comes to presidential elections, that happens quite frequently. How the majority of citizens vote (the “popular vote”) may go one way, but given the way districts are organized (and due to things like gerrymandering), the electoral college’s result may well be the opposte of “the popular vote.”
When that happens, the electoral college wins. There’s no deadlock or anything. That happened in 2016 with Trump’s victory. In recent times, Republicans have tended to lose the popular vote even when they’ve won the electoral college. But when they do, the electoral college wins.
I don’t think congress would really come into play except in some rather strange circumstances.
Edit: I managed to accidentally delete my last post. But I also wanted to add that when we vote for the president, we don’t actually vote for the president per se. We vote for an elector who promises to vote for the president we mark on the ballot. Kinda weird, I know, but that’s how it works. The “electoral college” is the term for the whole group of electors.
deweydecibel@lemmy.world 1 year ago
You’re misunderstanding the question.
They’re not talking about a presidential election. They’re talking about the basic function of the federal government.
The House of Representatives and the President are both elected by the population. The electoral college fucks up the presidential election, and gerrymandering fucks up House Representative elections. But to spite that, both of them are voted for by the “majority”, and therefore they more accurately represent the people.
The Senate is, by design, not meant to do that. It is meant to give an equal voice to each individual state, regardless of population. Majority does not rule when it comes to the Senate. Again, by design. It’s a deliberately anti-democratic body.
They’re asking what happens when populations move shift around and congregate in a few states. This would result in a deadlock situation where the House and the President both represent the majority of people but the Senate would increasingly strangle their will. It would create a permanent minority rule over the country, and being Washington to a deadlock for…well until something is done about it.
Navigate@partizle.com 1 year ago
The question is confusing, but are you under the impression that the Senate is elected by the states? This was the case until being changed by the 17th amendment. I believe the only times “states vote” would be in the case of constitutional amendments or the electoral college during a presidential election, but that is only in a sense because the states’ electors are still chosen by the votes of the people
WtfEvenIsExistence@reddthat.com 1 year ago
State is obviously referring to state populations
hoodlem@hoodlem.me 1 year ago
Yeah, it happens pretty frequently actually. Right now it is Executive + Senate vs House.
It means deadlock but not total deadlock. Just more compromise.
Now if it is Executive + House vs Senate, that has some new conflicts. The Senate confirms judicial appointments, so often in this situation the president’s nominees have a very hard time getting confirmed.
mipadaitu@lemmy.world 1 year ago
It can be more complicated than that depending on exactly what the breakdown is for senate and the house.
Historically, if a senator is from a swing state, they’ll need to compromise a little more than one from a more uniformly political state. So if it’s a very close senate split, there wouldn’t be so much deadlock.
If the Senate had 60+ from the opposing party though, then basically they can stop everything. They would have a supermajority and wouldn’t need to worry about filibustering, and moderate senators could still vote against the party line safely for questionable votes.
Then there are situations where upcoming elections can change voting strategy.
Really, the question is extremely point in time and can’t be answered on a general sense. Just compare the end of Obama’s term to the end of Clinton or Trump to see how different splits and political climate can have wildly different outcomes.
Tsavo43@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Nothing changes. There is no difference between the two parties anymore. It’s bought off multi-millionairs vs the rest of us. They get richer off our taxes while they make life more unbearable by the day. There are a handful of exceptions but in the grand scheme the vast majority all act tough in front of the cameras and screw us when the cameras are off.
Smokeydope@lemmy.world 1 year ago
The general population election is a popularity contest, all the for real voting power is with the electoral college members. Each state has a certain amount of EC representatives depending on population size. They can vote however they want even if its against the states general civillian vote
DontTreadOnBigfoot@lemmy.world 1 year ago
deweydecibel@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Yes. You’re seeing it somewhat already.
That was the actual point of the Senate. It’s meant to be a stopgap against populism. But like of like a pair of pants that used to fit and is not tearing at the seems, what was once working has become a serious issue due to how the country has grown and the cultural/geographical trends among the population.
In short, our country was never meant to be one wherein the vast majority of people all lived in a handful of states. It was designed at a time when the ratio between the biggest and smallest state’s population was around 7:1.
Now it’s 32:1.