EU law will force Apple to blow open its entire hardware and software stack

1235»

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 98
    mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 2,572member
    darkvader said:
    lam92103 said:
    Excellent. Cant wait

    Same.  If Apple doesn't make these changes worldwide (which I think they will, similar legislation is coming in the US soon), I'll be ordering my next iPhone from the EU.

    It's MY iPhone, not Apple's iPhone, and I should be allowed to install any software of MY choosing on it, from any source of MY choosing.  Apple has no right to stop me, and if legislation is what it takes to force them, then so be it.  Apple should have abandoned the idiotic walled garden nonsense before it ever got started.

    That's a fairly ignorant statement. It is actually Apple's product they designed, developed and produced for people to purchase. YOU did not pay them to make it for YOU. YOU made the decision to purchase that product as it was produced. That singular physical device you purchased is in fact yours to do with as you please within the limits of what Apple decided it could and should do. You do not own the operating system, nor did you purchase the right to modify the code to suit your needs.  If it doesn't do something you want, then return it and get a device that does. 

    Only an idiot would buy something that wasn't what they wanted and then complain and try to force a company to make what they want instead of returning it and looking for another product that does. But... this is the state of the world today; full of entitled people who feel that they should be able to force others to produce exactly what they need and want.
    edited May 23 bestkeptsecretdanoxtht
  • Reply 82 of 98
    mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 2,572member
     Apple should stop selling all current iPhones and produce two new models for the EU market...

    1. An Android based phone that complies 100% with these EU laws.
    2. A new Phone that is completely closed - no App Store and no 3rd party development at all, only apple software and services. Anything else, use the web.

    Stop updating iOS and only provide security updates. Maybe offer an "upgrade" to Android for those that want it.

    Anyone that wants a real iPhone can just buy it from a non-EU country.
    danox
  • Reply 83 of 98
    MadbumMadbum Posts: 106member
    mjtomlin said:
     Apple should stop selling all current iPhones and produce two new models for the EU market...

    1. An Android based phone that complies 100% with these EU laws.
    2. A new Phone that is completely closed - no App Store and no 3rd party development at all, only apple software and services. Anything else, use the web.

    Stop updating iOS and only provide security updates. Maybe offer an "upgrade" to Android for those that want it.

    Anyone that wants a real iPhone can just buy it from a non-EU country.
    That is exactly what Apple should do. Just make a compliant shit iPhone for the EU and make a Normal version so people can chose. 

    Is EU against giving people a choice too?
  • Reply 84 of 98
    tehabetehabe Posts: 63member
    Madbum said:
    mjtomlin said:
     Apple should stop selling all current iPhones and produce two new models for the EU market...

    1. An Android based phone that complies 100% with these EU laws.
    2. A new Phone that is completely closed - no App Store and no 3rd party development at all, only apple software and services. Anything else, use the web.

    Stop updating iOS and only provide security updates. Maybe offer an "upgrade" to Android for those that want it.

    Anyone that wants a real iPhone can just buy it from a non-EU country.
    That is exactly what Apple should do. Just make a compliant shit iPhone for the EU and make a Normal version so people can chose. 

    Is EU against giving people a choice too?
    This regulation is exactly about this, having choice, even if the company doesn't want to give you choice. And Apple Maps is still awful for my region but I can't change which map is being open when I click on a address in the Address Book or in the Calendar, it uses Apple Maps for that, which even can't give me a bicycle route and which information is outdated and they recently removed the feedback function, not that feedback made any difference in the past. Case in point, not everything Apple does is good or usable and you might like not having a choice, I think it would improve iOS.

    Apple always said, that they couldn't make users choose their default email or web browser, and this is just BS, they didn't want to.

    I mean, you can't even have multiple users on an iPad.

    And no, those limitatitions are not for your benefit, they are only for Apple's benefit. And don't come with the argument, that companies are only there to make profit and don't have to care about anything else. That is neo-liberal ideology which is simply not true. And even if true, because in this case the state has to regulate if a company does not act in the way it is beneficial to its consumers.

    In Germany the parliament just made a law that it forbids companies to prolong contracts automatically for another 12 months. You might like that a company is able to lock you in for a year if you missed the deadline for the termination but I don't.
  • Reply 85 of 98
    mcdavemcdave Posts: 1,919member
    crowley said:
    mcdave said:
    crowley said:
    mcdave said:
    crowley said:
    mcdave said:
    crowley said:
    mcdave said:
    crowley said:
    rob53 said:
    EU is a dictatorship, plain and simple. At this point Apple needs to seriously tell the EU to GTH. The US needs to triple import duties on EU goods effectively shutting the EU down. The US should also reduce exports to the EU and cut off any financial support. 
    Weird how the EU dictatorship has so many elections.  
    That how you hide a dictatorship - behind the superficial inclusion of pre-determined options.
    You're suggesting that MEP elections are rigged?   :D
    All Elections are rigged - the options are predetermined.  The voter isn't expressing their opinion, they're witlessly endorsing another's.  What could possibly blind anyone into believing otherwise? ߤ㦬t;/div>
    This is so far beyond stupid I don't know where to start.  
    Why, because it refutes the validity of something you've adopted as foundational thinking? You won't be able to provide a logical rebuttal because there isn't one but that realisation will be painful for you and trigger emotive responses like the one you've just provided.

    Freedom always lays within the determination of your options, not the selection of someone else's. The question is why do so many people fail to see/accept the logic? It's almost as if their rational thinking has been compromised by something - ah yes, defiance. The EU, the US and all Western states know which is why they're so hellbent on choice-based systems and shutting down directive systems like fascism, communism & Apple - they're terrified the woke will wake. 
    I wondered if my original response was a little harsh, but my stars, you bulldozed me.

    Crikey, I thought you were just inarticulate, but you're actually scary.  You think fascism is choice-based?  Maybe for a select population, good luck if you're anyone else.  You think a "directive system" will allow you any agency that you would recognise as freedom?   Good plan Batman, you're freely walking into your own oppression.  When have either of those options led to good outcomes for the population as a whole?

    Representative democracy and republicanism is a compromise of course, but one that allows the freedom to choose your representation, or to stand as a representative yourself.  Nothing about it is predetermined, save the printing on the vote slip, and if you don't like that spoil the ballot or write in if you want to protest.  The ballot is an understanding that a community contains a multitude of views, and that building a consensus via the melting pot of a representative congress, parliament, witan or whatever you want to call it, is the best chance to meet the needs of the most people while holding power to account.

    And somehow I doubt this is what rob53 meant.  Nice bit of division-sowing though, I'll think I'll block your crazy ass now.
    I never said Fascism was choice-based. I pointed out a democracy is simply a dictatorship disguised as liberty (courtesy of a few extra pre-determined options).

    “but one that allows the freedom to choose your representation, or to stand as a representative yourself” - yes, representation options which are pre-determined and how viable/likely is standing as a representative yourself? What proportion of voters do this or will they simply endorse status quo and surrender their ‘freedom’ at the precise moment they believe they’re exercising it. 

    I’m not intending to be divisive, I’m simply highlighting there are clear patterns of behaviour both in government & voters. In fact it’s the same observable pattern in Windows/Android fans, they see Apple’s ‘walled garden’ as directive/oppressive and run to whomever offers the pseudo self-determinism of choice. Using our defiance to defeat our rationalism is (evil) genius.
    If you're using "pre-determined" simply to mean that something happened in the past to put names on the ballot then that's so mundane an observation that it's barely worth acknowledging.  Yes, there's a process to get on the ballot, what of it?  There's nothing rigged about that, there's nothing evil about "something happened".

    And on the same note, if you're referring to the very notion of government as inherently a dictatorship because it creates laws then congratulations, you've identified authority.  The difference with democracy is that the authority can be readily changed, unlike the real world instances of your beloved "directive systems".

    This is so fucking stupid.  Actually blocked now, you've had your chance to respond and you blew it.  Braindead contrarianism.
    I’m using “pre-determined” to mean just that - the outcomes are pre-determined hence pre-determination as with a dictatorship. Not self-determination.

    Democracy claims to provide ‘liberty’ in the form of public representation. If someone chooses from self-determined options, that’s free-will or liberty. When they choose from pre-determined options that’s the opposite. A psychological illusion I thought we all saw through as kids, perhaps not.

    My issue with it isn’t the simple con & I don’t have an issue with directive government or management. It’s the psychological artefacts it creates and the global atrocities it hides which are problematic. How many western voters acknowledge they’re complicit in Islamic genocide?
  • Reply 86 of 98
    danoxdanox Posts: 1,042member
    xyzzy-xxx said:
    rob53 said:
    EU is a dictatorship, plain and simple. At this point Apple needs to seriously tell the EU to GTH. The US needs to triple import duties on EU goods effectively shutting the EU down. The US should also reduce exports to the EU and cut off any financial support. 
    Are you serious? Revenue share Q2 2021 of Apple:
    1. USA 38%
    2. EU 24%
    3. Greater China 20%
    ...
    By the way – I would guess that USA will follow EU!
    The USA won’t….
  • Reply 87 of 98
    danoxdanox Posts: 1,042member
    mjtomlin said:
     Apple should stop selling all current iPhones and produce two new models for the EU market...

    1. An Android based phone that complies 100% with these EU laws.
    2. A new Phone that is completely closed - no App Store and no 3rd party development at all, only apple software and services. Anything else, use the web.

    Stop updating iOS and only provide security updates. Maybe offer an "upgrade" to Android for those that want it.

    Anyone that wants a real iPhone can just buy it from a non-EU country.
    Apple will have one type of iPhone for the EU and one for the rest of the world….

    Guess which iPhone the EU %1 will buy when vacationing outside Europe…..
    edited May 24
  • Reply 88 of 98
    danoxdanox Posts: 1,042member
    crowley said:
    With this approach there is no protection for something that someone designs, develops and markets - where is the incentive to build something of worth that is “Profitable” !?!?
    Profit?
    So is that why the European Linux OS is dog crap? When compared to Mac OS, how’s that profit going in the Linux world still unusable for the non-geek class.
  • Reply 89 of 98
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,234member
    danox said:
    crowley said:
    With this approach there is no protection for something that someone designs, develops and markets - where is the incentive to build something of worth that is “Profitable” !?!?
    Profit?
    So is that why the European Linux OS is dog crap? When compared to Mac OS, how’s that profit going in the Linux world still unusable for the non-geek class.
    What European Linux OS? Red Hat is American, Ubuntu’s Canonical is UK. Fedora and Debian aren’t really tied to any particular place and aren’t run for profit.  Others I’d need to look up.

    Canonical and Red Hat turn a profit.
    edited May 24 nadriel
  • Reply 90 of 98
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 1,870member
    Dictating features and product design (that is not safety related) by a governmental body is ridiculous. Governments generally suck at questions of technology. And last time I checked Apple products are immensely popular as the company has chosen to design them. The ‘walled garden’ is something that I as a consumer has chosen to support. I definitely don’t want the EU or China or the US government for that matter trying to legislate product design and features. It’s a massive overstep. It’s just like the ‘backdoor’ that governments have been trying to manipulate into happening. This proposed law will take away my freedom to choose the product I want. 
    It is a funny term walled garden. Walled gardens aren’t prisons like the term is used in tech. They are havens, sun traps and out of the wind so the lucky owner can cultivate. 

    If you break the walls all that hard work effort and patience is lost and plants inside will die get overrun with weeds. 

    Only scammers want to break a walled garden. 
  • Reply 91 of 98
    tehabetehabe Posts: 63member
    mattinoz said:
    Dictating features and product design (that is not safety related) by a governmental body is ridiculous. Governments generally suck at questions of technology. And last time I checked Apple products are immensely popular as the company has chosen to design them. The ‘walled garden’ is something that I as a consumer has chosen to support. I definitely don’t want the EU or China or the US government for that matter trying to legislate product design and features. It’s a massive overstep. It’s just like the ‘backdoor’ that governments have been trying to manipulate into happening. This proposed law will take away my freedom to choose the product I want. 
    It is a funny term walled garden. Walled gardens aren’t prisons like the term is used in tech. They are havens, sun traps and out of the wind so the lucky owner can cultivate. 

    If you break the walls all that hard work effort and patience is lost and plants inside will die get overrun with weeds. 

    Only scammers want to break a walled garden. 
    That is why I would rather use the term gated community, which I would think is bad for the community/internet as a hole:
  • Reply 92 of 98
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,606member
    crowley said:
    davidw said:
    crowley said:
    camber said:
    In their own jurisdiction the EU is perfectly entitled to pass whatever laws they think their citizenry will obey. However, there is one aspect of this proposed legislation that is illegal and immoral. The EU does not have the right to levy fines on any company's WORLD WIDE revenue or income. They are only legally entitled to level such fines on revenue or income produced in their jurisdiction!!!
    Why?  If I commit a crime in the USA where the penalty is a fine then I don't get out of it because my income is all outside of the USA.  Judges often set penalties with one eye on ability to pay and appropriate level of discomfort to the judged.
    Here in the US, a "fine" for violating a law, is the same for all that breaks that law, no matter the of income of the person or entity that broke that law. A judge can reduce the fine based on the inability to pay, but can't increase the fine just because the plaintiff can afford to pay more. It's "punitive" damages that can be awarded by the ability of the plaintiff to pay. But the punitive damages can not just be based on the plaintiff wealth or ability to pay. 

    Imagine if the amount of the fine for a parking ticket or for speeding, was based on the income of the driver. If that were the case, parking or speeding tickets would mainly be issued to cars made by the likes of Mercedes, BMW, Porches and Tesla. Why ticket the driver of a $1K 20 year old clunker when the government can most likely get much more in fines by ticketing the Mercedes, for the same effort and offense? The fine should not be different for the driver of a Honda and the driver of a Lamborghini.   

    In the US, there has been many SCOTUS rulings that limits punitive damages. Even if the plaintiff could had easily pay it. Many States place limits on punitive damages. The SCOTUS has ruled that excessive punitive damages can be a violation of the Constitution 8th Amendment, dealing with "excessive fines". The amount of the punitive damages must be in line with the amount of compensatory damages (actual damages and harm), not the income or wealth of the plaintiff. If there's no compensatory damages awarded, then there can not be any award for punitive damages. If compensatory damages (actual damages and harm) can not be proven in a court of law, then how can there be any punitive damages?  What is the plaintiff being punished for? 

    The "fine" should be base on how much actual damages or harm was caused by breaking the law and that fine should be the same for all violators, regardless of income or wealth. Punitive damages should not be excessive when compared to the amount for actual damages and harm. If Apple, Google and Microsoft broke the same EU regulation and cause the same damages, Apple should not have to pay a "fine" of $3.7B, while Google has to pay $2.7B and Microsoft only $1.7B, based on annual global revenue. It's the same "parking ticket"and the fine should be the same for all three. If the EU wants to punish the violator, then the punitive damage should be in line with the compensatory damages, not the violator global revenue.   

    https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-viii/clauses/103 ;

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/wlf/2021/04/08/are-constitutionally-excessive-punitive-damages-headed-back-to-the-supreme-court-lets-hope-so/

    If Volkswagen was fined 10% of their $275B global revenue (at the time) for violating emission laws in all the jurisdictions involved, Volkswagen would no longer be in business today, just from having to pay the fines. Never mind the compensatory and civil damages and the cost to fix the damages they caused to all parties. In the US, Volkswagen was fined  about $2.8B in criminal fines and a settlement where Volkswagen had to pay at least another $18B to repair the damages they caused. There was no extra punitive damages levied to punish Volkswagen for violating US emission laws. The $2.8B in criminal fine was based on a set fine for each of the cars they sold in the US (that cheated on emissions). If was not based on any global revenue or cars they sold globally. Not even the EU levied a fine that was based on Volkswagen global revenue or cars sold. The US fine amounted to just a slap on the wrist and the EU fine was just a scolding while waving a finger and saying ... don't let us catch you doing that again. 
    As ever, thanks for the lecture about the US Constitution but it doesn't apply in the EU, so doesn't really matter a jot.

    Just because your Supreme Court has hobbled the ability of the law to adequately punish corporate malfeasance doesn't mean the rest of the world has any need to follow in step.
    FYI- The EU is not the rest of the World.


    Maybe the EU do not have to abide by the US Constitution, but they are a member of the WTO and should not be passing laws and regulations that would most likely violate WTO policies concerning their non discrimination obligations when passing laws and regulations dealing with trade.



    This is a long read but very informative. The DMA will probably violate regulations concerning EU non-discrimination obligations under the World Trade Organization (“WTO”),  as long as it is written in such away to specifically only include US tech and to exclude tech companies from the  EU and from all other countries.  Even the politicians that authored the DMA, admits to this. 



    >As proposed, the DMA will amend the EU competition law system to the benefit of European incumbents and subsidized Chinese competitors. European officials have championed the DMA as a tool for achieving technological sovereignty in the European Union, and they have overtly identified successful U.S. tech platforms as the intended targets of the DMA. Instead, these regulations should be scrutinized and then revised as necessary to ensure they do not function as discriminatory, unfair measures of industrial protectionism that could, if enacted, violate Europe’s trade commitments at the World Trade Organization (WTO).<


    The DMA as written now, is nothing but EU government "affirmative action", to help their less innovative EU techs compete globally, at the expense of only US techs, without having to show any proof that it will benefit any consumers. The EU claim is that the DMA suppose to stop any harm to consumers or competition before it happens. They don't need to have any proof that it will happen. 






  • Reply 93 of 98
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,234member
    davidw said:
    crowley said:
    davidw said:
    crowley said:
    camber said:
    In their own jurisdiction the EU is perfectly entitled to pass whatever laws they think their citizenry will obey. However, there is one aspect of this proposed legislation that is illegal and immoral. The EU does not have the right to levy fines on any company's WORLD WIDE revenue or income. They are only legally entitled to level such fines on revenue or income produced in their jurisdiction!!!
    Why?  If I commit a crime in the USA where the penalty is a fine then I don't get out of it because my income is all outside of the USA.  Judges often set penalties with one eye on ability to pay and appropriate level of discomfort to the judged.
    Here in the US, a "fine" for violating a law, is the same for all that breaks that law, no matter the of income of the person or entity that broke that law. A judge can reduce the fine based on the inability to pay, but can't increase the fine just because the plaintiff can afford to pay more. It's "punitive" damages that can be awarded by the ability of the plaintiff to pay. But the punitive damages can not just be based on the plaintiff wealth or ability to pay. 

    Imagine if the amount of the fine for a parking ticket or for speeding, was based on the income of the driver. If that were the case, parking or speeding tickets would mainly be issued to cars made by the likes of Mercedes, BMW, Porches and Tesla. Why ticket the driver of a $1K 20 year old clunker when the government can most likely get much more in fines by ticketing the Mercedes, for the same effort and offense? The fine should not be different for the driver of a Honda and the driver of a Lamborghini.   

    In the US, there has been many SCOTUS rulings that limits punitive damages. Even if the plaintiff could had easily pay it. Many States place limits on punitive damages. The SCOTUS has ruled that excessive punitive damages can be a violation of the Constitution 8th Amendment, dealing with "excessive fines". The amount of the punitive damages must be in line with the amount of compensatory damages (actual damages and harm), not the income or wealth of the plaintiff. If there's no compensatory damages awarded, then there can not be any award for punitive damages. If compensatory damages (actual damages and harm) can not be proven in a court of law, then how can there be any punitive damages?  What is the plaintiff being punished for? 

    The "fine" should be base on how much actual damages or harm was caused by breaking the law and that fine should be the same for all violators, regardless of income or wealth. Punitive damages should not be excessive when compared to the amount for actual damages and harm. If Apple, Google and Microsoft broke the same EU regulation and cause the same damages, Apple should not have to pay a "fine" of $3.7B, while Google has to pay $2.7B and Microsoft only $1.7B, based on annual global revenue. It's the same "parking ticket"and the fine should be the same for all three. If the EU wants to punish the violator, then the punitive damage should be in line with the compensatory damages, not the violator global revenue.   

    https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-viii/clauses/103 ;

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/wlf/2021/04/08/are-constitutionally-excessive-punitive-damages-headed-back-to-the-supreme-court-lets-hope-so/

    If Volkswagen was fined 10% of their $275B global revenue (at the time) for violating emission laws in all the jurisdictions involved, Volkswagen would no longer be in business today, just from having to pay the fines. Never mind the compensatory and civil damages and the cost to fix the damages they caused to all parties. In the US, Volkswagen was fined  about $2.8B in criminal fines and a settlement where Volkswagen had to pay at least another $18B to repair the damages they caused. There was no extra punitive damages levied to punish Volkswagen for violating US emission laws. The $2.8B in criminal fine was based on a set fine for each of the cars they sold in the US (that cheated on emissions). If was not based on any global revenue or cars they sold globally. Not even the EU levied a fine that was based on Volkswagen global revenue or cars sold. The US fine amounted to just a slap on the wrist and the EU fine was just a scolding while waving a finger and saying ... don't let us catch you doing that again. 
    As ever, thanks for the lecture about the US Constitution but it doesn't apply in the EU, so doesn't really matter a jot.

    Just because your Supreme Court has hobbled the ability of the law to adequately punish corporate malfeasance doesn't mean the rest of the world has any need to follow in step.
    FYI- The EU is not the rest of the World.


    Maybe the EU do not have to abide by the US Constitution, but they are a member of the WTO and should not be passing laws and regulations that would most likely violate WTO policies concerning their non discrimination obligations when passing laws and regulations dealing with trade.



    This is a long read but very informative. The DMA will probably violate regulations concerning EU non-discrimination obligations under the World Trade Organization (“WTO”),  as long as it is written in such away to specifically only include US tech and to exclude tech companies from the  EU and from all other countries.  Even the politicians that authored the DMA, admits to this. 



    >As proposed, the DMA will amend the EU competition law system to the benefit of European incumbents and subsidized Chinese competitors. European officials have championed the DMA as a tool for achieving technological sovereignty in the European Union, and they have overtly identified successful U.S. tech platforms as the intended targets of the DMA. Instead, these regulations should be scrutinized and then revised as necessary to ensure they do not function as discriminatory, unfair measures of industrial protectionism that could, if enacted, violate Europe’s trade commitments at the World Trade Organization (WTO).<


    The DMA as written now, is nothing but EU government "affirmative action", to help their less innovative EU techs compete globally, at the expense of only US techs, without having to show any proof that it will benefit any consumers. The EU claim is that the DMA suppose to stop any harm to consumers or competition before it happens. They don't need to have any proof that it will happen.  
    Why are you linking me to all this crap?  It has nothing to do with whether the EU are able to levy fines on worldwide revenue.  Save your time.

    I know the EU is not the rest of the world, and you know I do.  I didn't imply that anywhere, so quit with the pompousness.
    nadriel
  • Reply 94 of 98
    I think it’s probably more important to unify all the cars. I want all the parts and range rovers and BMWs and Toyota Corolla‘s sold in the EU to be able to use the same seats and steering wheels and radios and windshields. Also the controls should all be the same because it’s such a pain in the ass to learn separate controls from car to car. Makes much more sense then castrating the Apple system
  • Reply 95 of 98
    tehabetehabe Posts: 63member
    I think it’s probably more important to unify all the cars. I want all the parts and range rovers and BMWs and Toyota Corolla‘s sold in the EU to be able to use the same seats and steering wheels and radios and windshields. Also the controls should all be the same because it’s such a pain in the ass to learn separate controls from car to car. Makes much more sense then castrating the Apple system
    This is an awful and a good analogy at the same time. The law doesn't say that at cars must use the same parts but it would give small car repair shops the ability to repair any cars it wants to support, because car manufactures must supply spare parts and documentation so that people can repair their cars. Or the car maker must allow third party companies to build those parts. Of course your are allowed to use certfified car shops if you want, because they have probably certified training but you don't have to. That is the important point.
  • Reply 96 of 98
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,710member
    rob53 said:

    Our antiquated electoral college was created to allow slave states to have a voice while at least recently, the majority of US citizens have had to settle for a president elected my a minority of voters.
    How breathtakingly ignorant.  The electoral college was created to prevent the tyranny of the majority and provide the greatest and most equal representation as possible without letting states with large populations rule the roost by default.  I know, how inconvenient that you may not just get what you want through might, but might have to compromise or build that pesky consensus.  

    The founding fathers were well aware of the horrors of pure democracies throughout history - and their countless failures.  The 17th amendment almost succeeded in training people to ignore local elections and focus purely on national elections.  Until the covid lockdowns.  Thank god - the BS going on during covid finally started to wake people out of their apathy - it's something to behold!  
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 97 of 98
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,234member
    docno42 said:
    rob53 said:

    Our antiquated electoral college was created to allow slave states to have a voice while at least recently, the majority of US citizens have had to settle for a president elected my a minority of voters.
    How breathtakingly ignorant.  The electoral college was created to prevent the tyranny of the majority and provide the greatest and most equal representation as possible without letting states with large populations rule the roost by default.  I know, how inconvenient that you may not just get what you want through might, but might have to compromise or build that pesky consensus.  

    The founding fathers were well aware of the horrors of pure democracies throughout history - and their countless failures.  The 17th amendment almost succeeded in training people to ignore local elections and focus purely on national elections.  Until the covid lockdowns.  Thank god - the BS going on during covid finally started to wake people out of their apathy - it's something to behold!  
    "Countless" pure democracies before 1776?  
    nadriel
Sign In or Register to comment.