Not really. But there's a much better case for doing THAT than the electoral system to give an arbitrary group of people inflated votes, who happen to live in less populated states.
It's nothing but cheating put into the law. If you reacted with hostility to the two votes for black people idea, then you should react with even more hostility to the electoral system corruption. The Senate is one thing, where 500,000 Wyomingans get the same say as 40,000,000 Californians, which is like 80 votes per Wyoming voter, but their getting a big 'bonus' vote for president is just wrong.
I can think of some Republics that aren't also democracies. The People's Republic of China, the Russian Federation, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Arab Republic of Egypt..... you know what, these Republics kinda suck.
Do you understand the fact that WITHOUT the electorial college, a half dozen coastal states could dictate law for the whole country?
55-3 and you think 3 if bigger than 55. What part of the union of the several states are you willing to breakup and dissolve?
This is a Republic, it always has been. Democracy is mob rule, which is what the French revolution was. This is what the EC is for, to prevent another French Revolution. But, as always, those who learn from history are doomed to stand by while stupid people repeat history.
As opposed to Ohio and Florida dictating things now?
Athenian democracy is mob rule. No country has tried direct democracy in 2500 years.
If you're so convinced that this is not a democracy, then you don't get to vote, because the sanctity of voting is the cornerstone of our democratic values, which is why voting is set down as part of the Constitution in the first place.
No one advocates for direct democracy so enough with the knee jerk binary dogma.
It's a gross misrepresentation of what "democracy" means in the modern era.
And it's intentional.
they don't. we hold elections just like every other state.
People in all states vote for who they want as president.
As we saw last election any state can go either way.
Which would be even more true if the EC were eliminated.
Not really. But there's a much better case for doing THAT than the electoral system to give an arbitrary group of people inflated votes, who happen to live in less populated states.
It's nothing but cheating put into the law. If you reacted with hostility to the two votes for black people idea, then you should react with even more hostility to the electoral system corruption. The Senate is one thing, where 500,000 Wyomingans get the same say as 40,000,000 Californians, which is like 80 votes per Wyoming voter, but their getting a big 'bonus' vote for president is just wrong.
not really.
Eliminate the EC and then NY can CA dictate who is president.
Athenian democracy is mob rule. No country has tried direct democracy in 2500 years.
If you're so convinced that this is not a democracy, then you don't get to vote, because the sanctity of voting is the cornerstone of our democratic values, which is why voting is set down as part of the Constitution in the first place.
No one advocates for direct democracy so enough with the knee jerk binary dogma.
It's a gross misrepresentation of what "democracy" means in the modern era.
And it's intentional.
Because they are ideological monoliths? There are no Republicans or third party voters in either state?
volume of people.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-votes-to-count-than-were-cast-in-34-states/
great article you should read it and see why what you are saying is not true.
not that you probably will.
actually that is exactly what leftist are pushing for is a pure mob rule democracy.
It is the only way they can silence their opposition.
a true democracy is the first wave to an authoritarian and dictatorship government.
it is the reason that our country was setup to not use a true democracy which the founding fathers saw
as corrupt and evil.
The OP points to a problem common to republics. It is impossible to give each citizen equal say in the federal government if each state is to have an equal say unless each state has an exactly equal number of citizens. It would require that state boundaries be re-drawn as often as the minimum term in the federal government for an elected representative -- 2 years in the US -- just as state congressional district boundaries are re-drawn every 10 years or so.*
The drafters of the US Constitution proudly proclaimed 'We, the people' when, in fact, they meant, essentially, we, the landed class. Those in power -- the elite -- in each state were jealous of that power and unwilling to cede it to the federal government. Thus, only the representatives of the lower house were selected by the voters, and the voters were but a small minority of the people actually living within the boundaries of the country.
Athens, cited as the 'birthplace of democracy', selected people for public positions by lot in many instances. We see the last remnant of this in the selection of juries in the US. It prevented the rise of professional politicians and ensured that all** were keenly aware that they had a duty to the country.
Regards, stay safe 'n well.
* Seven of our states have but one federal congressional district.
** 'All', in Athens, as in 'All' in the US Constitution, certainly didn't include the majority.
I actually believe that the Electoral College in and of itself is not the big problem some make it out to be.
It's when we have the EC, along WITH things like Citizens United and gerrymandering that we see the kinds of problems we have today, and then when you add in the fact that the Voting Rights Act was gutted, it exacerbates the problem even more.
Get rid of all of the above, CU, gerrymandering and restore the Voting Rights Act and the Electoral College reverts back to being a crude balancing act, perhaps not perfect but not nearly as harmful as it is when used together with CU, gerrymandering and state sanctioned vote suppression.
You get to pick any of the above but not all four, you don't get to have the EC, plus CU, plus vote suppression, plus gerrymandering.
You get to pick just one, and I suspect that if that were the case, the EC would survive and the other three would be dispatched quickly.
Hi!
Thank you for taking time to respond at length.
As you noted, the Electoral College is but one of the ways in which our process of selecting those who represent us in our several governments is skewed from a simple 'one man, one vote'. A phrase attributed to the late Mahatma Mohandas Gandhi has been running around my wetware for a while now. It goes, 'What you do for me but without me, you do to me.' Our government ostensibly acts for us. There is, however, a distinct fuzziness surrounding the definition of 'us'*.
* The fortuitous coincidence of 'us' and 'US' comes to mind here. [Ed.: Words are Torus34's Lego(r) blocks.]
I just happen to believe that the other aforementioned issues compound the flaws in the EC, and that by itself the EC is by far the least harmful of them all. It is flawed, it is at cross purposes in some ways, however it is the existence of the EC together with these other items that combine together to cause the harm we are witnessing now, because CU enhances manufacture of consent, the gutting of the VRA enhances vote suppression and gerrymandering distorts the field to where candidates pick their voters instead of vice versa.
By itself, the EC is pretty much "grading on a curve" or "weighting a poll" to reflect conditions.
But it is not in and of itself a "finger on the scale"...that's what CU, gerrymandering and vote suppression are used for.
Not really. But there's a much better case for doing THAT than the electoral system to give an arbitrary group of people inflated votes, who happen to live in less populated states.
It's nothing but cheating put into the law. If you reacted with hostility to the two votes for black people idea, then you should react with even more hostility to the electoral system corruption. The Senate is one thing, where 500,000 Wyomingans get the same say as 40,000,000 Californians, which is like 80 votes per Wyoming voter, but their getting a big 'bonus' vote for president is just wrong.
Not really. But there's a much better case for doing THAT than the electoral system to give an arbitrary group of people inflated votes, who happen to live in less populated states.
It's nothing but cheating put into the law. If you reacted with hostility to the two votes for black people idea, then you should react with even more hostility to the electoral system corruption. The Senate is one thing, where 500,000 Wyomingans get the same say as 40,000,000 Californians, which is like 80 votes per Wyoming voter, but their getting a big 'bonus' vote for president is just wrong.
Stating your opinion forcefully doesn't magically turn it into a fact, that's not how debate works.
Your claim is not only pathetic for using terms like "leftist", it's inaccurate and unfounded, because if it wasn't, you'd be providing ample examples to buttress your overly emotional rants about "leftist".
Why don't you hit some leftist(s) with your purse, maybe that will fix the problem.
I'll wait while you provide some concrete examples that demonstrate this wild claim that "leftist" are leading some dominating campaign to turn the USA into a direct democracy.
You could always move to Wyoming if you really think it's that big a deal.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?