If a given party or political subset in the USA is unable to cleanly win enough votes to have the seats to execute their will and vision--on either local, state, or national level--is that anyone's problem but theirs? How much of a seat at the table should the losers of elections have?
A classic example I hear complained about routinely is city government: of the top like 50 USA cities by population, how many are ran by Republicans? Two? Three? Maybe?
In my city, on social media and such, it's an annual series of complaints by Republicans and conservatives of various persuasions that they have no ability to change government as they cannot win elections locally.
The common retort they usually get goes like this:
If you want power, convince people to vote for your viewpoints. Voting and convincing the public is the only legitimate avenue to power. If you can't do that, you don't get power. The end.
Now, to me, that's completely in line with logic, the law, and common sense. If you believe in a Thing, and not enough people vote for the Thing, you shouldn't get your way. Convince people to vote for Thing, and you can get Thing.
Right?
The normal response, in this example scenario, generally devolves into some written word variant of this gif here.
What's your take on this?
Advertising by Adpathway