In parliamentary systems the population does not elect the chief executive.
The need to reconsider the Electoral College (and it has nothing to do with Trump)
- Thread starter archives
- Start date
In parliamentary systems the population does not elect the chief executive.
countryboy
Verified User
That is the point of the electoral college. Nice try though.
And the founders never envisioned a "representative democracy". Another nice try.
There was no majority popular vote in 2000 or 2016. The framers specifically sought to avoid creating a democracy to avoid "the tyranny of the majority."
We are a representitive republic. Not a democracy.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
the first thing they should do is reconsider the way they apportion electoral votes.......California has way to much influence in politics because they include illegal immigrants in their population and get more congressmen and more electoral votes than they should have........
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
yes......you're welcome......
Prove it. Provide documentation supporting yoir claim
Cancel 2018.2
Oh, hi
We are a republic. Read the Constitution.
Don't know how many times we're going see the same misunderstanding, America is a democratic Republic, we vote for those to represent us, what Republic means is that those who we have elected represent us, it doesn't mean we aren't a democracy
This was the design of the Founding Fathers, and it implies every citizens vote counts the same, not that one vote is weighed more than another
Again, but we elect those representatives democratically, otherwise we would resemble the "Republic of Syria," where one vote counts more than all the others
It will change the minute, maybe even the very nanosecond Republicans win the national popular vote but lose the electoral college in a future election.
I do not think Republicans give a rat's ass about fairness and virtue, but they will care about the injustice of their candidate winning the popular vote but being denied the presidency.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
I got it from a right wing rag, CBS News.....
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/column-illegal-immigration-affects-electoral-votes/
it was true in 2010 and it will be true in 2020 unless the law is changed....
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
probably not....because then the Demmycrats will be in charge and they don't want it changed either.......
Not so much. You elect your state and local representitive democratically. The electoral college was put in place as a balance on any one group. The Framers knew what happened with mob rule and set things up the way they did to preserve individual liberty. If all offices were elected democratically then there would be no balance to that power.
I think liberals would sing a very different tune if they did not control those population centers.
Thanks for the topic archives #1.
It is ironic that the Founders chose for U.S. a representative republic rather than a democracy,
EXPLICITLY because:
- they called democracy "mob rule", &
- the Founders wanted a nation of laws, not majority preference. And they said a republic would help avoid
- tyranny of the majority.
Splendid.
The irony is, the GOP hasn't populated the white house once in the new millennium with a candidate that won the popular vote.
The result: tyranny of the minority.
Sadly, needless thousands have already died because of it.
How many more must die, before the will of the People is honored?
It is ironic that the Founders chose for U.S. a representative republic rather than a democracy,
EXPLICITLY because:
- they called democracy "mob rule", &
- the Founders wanted a nation of laws, not majority preference. And they said a republic would help avoid
- tyranny of the majority.
Splendid.
The irony is, the GOP hasn't populated the white house once in the new millennium with a candidate that won the popular vote.
The result: tyranny of the minority.
Sadly, needless thousands have already died because of it.
How many more must die, before the will of the People is honored?
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
It also assures those regions are also represented and that rest of the nation isn’t completely dominated by a tyranny of the majority of those 15 major metropolitan regions. In the long run this is better for sustaining our Republic. It assures that national politicians can’t ignore “flyover” country.
In the short it does harm in that we are, from time to time, led by unpopular national leaders who are either demagogues or inept at governing (or both, like Trump) or reactionary minorities who resist change the majority needs.
In the long run the advantages of the electoral college outweighs its disadvantages. It is certainly understandable why it’s not popular in the major population centers but it would be a serious mistake underestimate the importance of geography in our national politics.
So the vote of a rural voter should count proportionally more than an urban voter?
I don't think so.
Rural states already are given undue and disproportionate influence due to the structure of the United States senate. 2 senators represent 30 million Californians, while 20 senators represent 10 million people in sparsely populated rural states.
When in looked like a strong possibility that George Dumbya was going to lose the EC to Gore while wining the popular vote, the Bush campaign had contingency plans in place to discredit the electoral college and Gore's presumptive victory. In state elections, for governor, I have never heard a conservative demand there be an proportional, electoral-college system at the state level to ensure rural voters have a more proportionate say in electing the Governor. For those reasons, when I hear rightwingers sing the virtues of the EC, I am sure there is actually another reason for it - one they are not willing to articulate publically.
What we really need is something akin to an meritocracy. Aristotle was on the right path, in the right ball park. We have way too many bozos, incompetents, dunces, and dunderheads who are able to attain positions of power because of money, wealth, and the trappings of inheritance and aristocracy. Just look at Trump. Getting money the fuck out of politics, making college free for all, making more of an effort towards gender and racial equality, and a permanent constitutional ban on giving money to politicians would all be significant steps to making our representative democracy more like a meritocracy.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Not always. Disproportionate representation has some serious disadvantages. A good example is the role it played in the run up to the Civil War where disproportionate representation of Southern States, particularly the Senate, played a significant role in resolving the crisis without resorting to violence.
countryboy
Verified User
I could conversely say. "So, California and New York should rule the nation? I don't think so".
Thanks for the topic archives #1.
It is ironic that the Founders chose for U.S. a representative republic rather than a democracy,
EXPLICITLY because:
- they called democracy "mob rule", &
- the Founders wanted a nation of laws, not majority preference. And they said a republic would help avoid
- tyranny of the majority.
Splendid.
The irony is, the GOP hasn't populated the white house once in the new millennium with a candidate that won the popular vote.
The result: tyranny of the minority.
Sadly, needless thousands have already died because of it.
How many more must die, before the will of the People is honored?
And that is why the separation of powers is important. Doing away with the electoral college would essentially do away with that separation.