Does a nonproportional Senate and non-proportional, non-democratic Electoral College harm democracy?

[Igel]

55. There are a variety of types of "democracy."

We have one. People seem to think sometimes there's only a single type and it would favor them.

A number of SCOTUS and even Congressional decisions were "undemocratic" in the sense that they weren't supposed by 50% + 1 of the population. We forget this. Civil rights. Abortion. Desegregation.



There's also the issue at which level we want "democracy." Do we force a single, proportionally representative down the throats of people by saying it must be at the federal level and not at the state level? How about at the county level?

The decision people choose usually boils down to what would happen to issues they like given one or the other. If it's an issue that carries the state but which would lose at the federal level, it's all "states' rights." If it's an issue that would fail locally but carry nationally, let the federal-level decision reign.


We have one democratic solution. It's worked reasonably well as long as people worked reasonably well together. Now that there's no reason to work together and every reason to insult and obfuscate--with partisans jeering and cheering, depending on their sides--it's not working. What's changed isn't gerrymandering or the way the Senate is elected. What's changed is the culture and political pandering.