We are a representative democracy for a reason. It was designed that way.

You can't change the rules of the game because you're losing.

The United States was designed as a representative democracy on purpose by the forefathers. That is fact.

> We are a representative democracy

And the argument is that this democracy isn't sufficiently "representative", since it doesn't represent everyone equally. Indeed that's an explicit non-goal.

> You can't change the rules of the game because you're losing.

But you can agree that the rules of the game are rigged against one side. You don't get to deny that just because you're winning.

Just because something was designed for a specific purpose a few hundred years ago doesn't mean it serves that same purpose today. Situations change. The Constitution was designed to be amended.

"representative democracy" does not require the structure of the US senate, nor state districting policies, nor the electoral college.

There are many other representative democracies that do not have any of these "features".

Also, I thought a reply ago, you stated that the left was winning, not losing.

It was designed to be unfair. The small states threw a fit at the constitutional convention so now we're stuck with this bs. Why does representative democracy mean some people are more represented than others? Why can't everyone be equally represented in a representative democracy?

Right? "We are a representative democracy" is some Orwellian doublespeak. It leaves out "But some people are more represented than others."

"All votes are representative, but some votes are more representative than others."

You bring up Orwell. Both sides can get to extremism pretty easily. Both conservatives and liberals easily become dictators. Power corrupts everyone.

This has nothing to do with Orwell. Im not sure why you bring him up.

The forefathers designed the system this way. I agree with the way it was designed. It prevents big states like California and New York from calling all the shots.

I agree with the forefathers. You do not. Simple.

> Im not sure why you bring him up.

Because saying "it's a representative democracy" is doublespeak. If you have one person representing tens of millions and another person representing a small city (~150k people), and they have the same vote, it's not meaningfully "representative". Saying "it's a representative democracy" doesn't tell you anything about the fairness of the system.

> I agree with the way it was designed.

Because it favors you. It would be a bad system even if it was the other way around (i.e. it favored the other side).

> It prevents big states like California and New York from calling all the shots.

I'm still to hear a good argument for why it's better for small states to call shots instead.

> I agree with the forefathers. You do not. Simple.

I'm fine with that. They were as fallible as anyone else and could not have foreseen that their system might have flaws. There's no need to deify them and think that everything they did was right.