- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 34,951
- Reaction score
- 16,311
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
Huh?no sorry in a republican form you elect also...
2 of 3. Senator and Representative.however to don't get to direct elect everyone..only 1 of 3
Not entirley. Sure they modeled off of it but they did not mirror it.the founders modeled America on the roman republic, a classical republic
Just because the senators were elected by state congresses votes does not mean that the federal government was sitll not the dominate factor.no the federal government is not dominate, because the senate was controlled by the states.
You couldn't possibly be more incorrect. The electoral college insures that presidential elections aren't dictated by the narrow interests of New York and California. It also gives a voice in the political process to the heartland.
Well, if the popular vote is so close that they need a recount, but a non-signatory state has, say , a 10% margin that wouldn't warrant a recount then how can the signatory states force the non-signatory state to spend state money on a recount?
A popular vote system would require all votes in all states be recounted.
You want it to go away for political reasons, which is why it's in place now. Sad.
Huh?
2 of 3. Senator and Representative.
Not entirley. Sure they modeled off of it but they did not mirror it.
Just because the senators were elected by state congresses votes does not mean that the federal government was sitll not the dominate factor.
I want it to go away because I don't believe that where you live should dictate how much of a voice you have in the government.
It was a democratic republic and is still a democratic republic...i was talking about the founders government not the current one....which was republican, today it is less republican and more democratic...which is sad.
Straight democracy will merely enhance the stupidity. Just like with allowing the "people" to vote for senators, it's a bad idea to change the EC in favor a DD system. It's like history speaks and falls on the ears of arrogant fools, this cycle repeats itself down through the ages.
It was a democratic republic and is still a democratic republic...
The President was elected by the Electoral College, the Senate by the States, and the House by the people. A balanced system, well thought out by the founders. Then, the left had to stick their noses in, because they know better than the founders.
So they were able to take away the State's presence in the federal government by changing the election of the Senate. So now, we have situations where a State supports something, while their two Senators vote against it. How dumb.
Now, they want to destroy the balance of the Presidential election and effectively take away the smaller State's influence on the election. No one will bother campaigning in or caring about the smaller States with this great new system. How brilliant! Good way to destroy the United States, since it will be ruled by the larger population centers only.
No they arent. They are not mutually exclusive.sorry no a republic and a democratic form are two different forms of government.
If they are mutually exclusive how can one have representatives that are democratically elected?Madison is clear about this in federalist 10 when the states their republican and democratic forms of government
Which is as it should be.The President was elected by the Electoral College, the Senate by the States, and the House by the people. A balanced system, well thought out by the founders.
No they arent. They are not mutually exclusive.
If they are mutually exclusive how can one have representatives that are democratically elected?
sorry no !
federalist 10---The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter.
Republican government does not have many factious combinations, because power is divided, democratic government power in concentrated in 1, "the people"
You really haven't thought this through have you?
The people elect representatives to represent them in government. Thats REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY no matter what the founders called it.
I've thought it through plenty.
The united states work because the power goes to the states.Okay then thoughtitoutplenty guy, let's break it down.
If the EC goes kebosh and we have a Direct Election...
You just shut out huge swaths of the country, they don't matter. The only people who will matter are those in dense population zones, I.E. City's. And people who live in the City have a different need and world view then rural folk. Glad to know you don't care about them.
You just shut out huge swaths of the country, they don't matter.
We are not a nation of people we are a nation of states. The states should have equal say in anything to do with the nation. The state of Kentucky is equal to the state of ny in running this country? or it won't work because if they don't get equal say there is northing, short of violence, to stop them from succeeding from the union.No, they matter (in proportion to their population) exactly as much as everywhere else. Everyone's vote counts the same amount. People living in the country should not get more of a say in who our president is than people living in cities.
And let's not kid ourselves here. Under the current system, a pretty good percentage of people's votes in quite a few states don't matter because they are a minority in states that consistently vote for the other party.
No, they matter (in proportion to their population) exactly as much as everywhere else. Everyone's vote counts the same amount. People living in the country should not get more of a say in who our president is than people living in cities.
And let's not kid ourselves here. Under the current system, a pretty good percentage of people's votes in quite a few states don't matter because they are a minority in states that consistently vote for the other party.
We are not a nation of people we are a nation of states.
The states should have equal say in anything to do with the nation.
Nope, you're condemning their voices to the wilderness. Good job.
Not anymore we're not.
No they shouldn't. That's an antiquated idea from a time where the vast majority of people never traveled more than a few miles from their homes and the fastest method of information dispersal was horseback.
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?