- Joined
- Oct 22, 2012
- Messages
- 32,516
- Reaction score
- 5,321
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Your sense of democracy is beyond the pale. A democratic governance has three central elements: the Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary. The first two are duly elected at the national level, the third only at state or local levels.
Just how many times must you be told in order to understand the fundamentals of a democracy?
Moving right along ...
the u.s. was not created a democratic form of government ,read your constitution article 4 section 4
he United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government
republic: noun
1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
2. any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.
3. a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.
democracy:
1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.
5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.
HUH? What? You obviously didn't understand the point.So no one from Utah or Kansas for example are in the other 2/3 of the government?
Article 4 Section 4: T
From the dictionary:
They are very much the same, just expressed differently. Line 1 in both definitions are almost identical.
And this exchange has nothing whatsoever to do with the original subject, which was "Electoral College" ...
if its a republican form then it cant be a democratic form of government can it?
the u.s., was created to be a republican form of government which is mixed, mixed government is not democracy
and it has been stated to you and with links the at the EC IS BASED ON THE ROMAN REPUBLIC OF GOVERNMENT....Rome was not democracy
HUH? What? You obviously didn't understand the point.
:doh...I stick to the definitions as I find them in the dictionary. The US is both a republic and a democracy.
Period.
There was a lot of discussion regarding the fact that Hillary won the popular vote and should therefore have won the election. The fact of the matter is that we DO elect our president via popular vote but we do so indirectly. Your vote counts at the state level and then the states vote for president. You might not like it but that's the way it works.....and here's why the system was designed that way -
Politico has the popular vote count at 62.5M for Hillary and 61.2 M for Trump. That's a difference of 1.3M votes and I've heard suggestions that the final total will be Hillary by more than 2 million votes. That's a pretty compelling argument but if you look into it:
PRESIDENT
From the LA County Recorder's office, Hillary got over 2.1 million votes in the county while Trump got less than 700k.
That alone is 1.4 million of Hillary's overage.
Here's the NY Times figures for NY.
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/new-york
The 5 Boroughs that are generally considered to be New York City are Manhattan, Brooklyn, Bronx, Queens and Staten Island. If you look at the votes in those boroughs you'll find that Hillary beat Trump by 1.5 Million votes.
Just TWO CITIES accounted for roughly 150% of Hillary's popular vote win.
THAT, folks, is why we have an electoral college. It prevents the possibility that voters in just two cities can control the election of a president.
why should i want less people spread further apart controlling elections instead?
The federal government is supposed to be representative of the country as whole. Neither the cities nor the farms are supposed to control the nation but both are supposed to have fair and proportional representation.
it would seem givng every one a vote would do that
Not at all.
Let's say that you work in an office with 20 other people. Everyone in the office has to pool their money for lunch and everyone has to order from whatever place the group picks. There are 11 people in the Accounting department who vote as a bloc and always vote for anchovy sandwiches. The other 9 people don't like anchovy but, since the majority rules, their preferences are simply dismissed. Does that really sound fair?
Now, let's say that we change the office from a Direct Democracy to a Republic. It's decided that the office as a whole gets 5 votes to be allocated between the four departments. Accounting gets 2 votes because they have the most people. The other departments all get one vote because they each have 3 employees. Now you have a situation where the various departments have to come to some agreement with each other regarding where to go for lunch. That need to reach an agreement means that everyone in the office gets representation with every vote and that no single group can force a decision.
Not at all.
Let's say that you work in an office with 20 other people. Everyone in the office has to pool their money for lunch and everyone has to order from whatever place the group picks. There are 11 people in the Accounting department who vote as a bloc and always vote for anchovy sandwiches. The other 9 people don't like anchovy but, since the majority rules, their preferences are simply dismissed. Does that really sound fair?
Now, let's say that we change the office from a Direct Democracy to a Republic. It's decided that the office as a whole gets 5 votes to be allocated between the four departments. Accounting gets 2 votes because they have the most people. The other departments all get one vote because they each have 3 employees. Now you have a situation where the various departments have to come to some agreement with each other regarding where to go for lunch. That need to reach an agreement means that everyone in the office gets representation with every vote and that no single group can force a decision.
probably should not decide your lunch or department spending based on a buisnes wide vote
and if most of your employees are in a large deparmtent but the little ones hold control becase they vote the same way that still seems just as bad but now more people are not getting what they vote for
Greetings, Lutherf. :2wave:
Great analogy! :thumbs: I don't think I'd ever vote for anchovy sandwiches, no matter where I worked, so I'd sure prefer the Republic way of doing things - at least I'd have a variety of choices!
OK. So much for my office lunch analogy.
Let me put it this way, a Democratic form of government means that the majority can always outvote the minority. It's a great situation for the majority but tends to suck for the minority. That sucking aspect tends to breed discontent and foment stuff like Revolutionary wars. A Republican form of government, however, insures that everyone gets proportional representation. It doesn't stop the sucking aspect but it does make it a temporary problem instead of a permanent one. In fact, it's a lot like life in a free society. You can't win all the time but you've always at least got the opportunity to play the game.
Greetings, Lutherf. :2wave:
Great analogy! :thumbs: I don't think I'd ever vote for anchovy sandwiches, no matter where I worked, so I'd sure prefer the Republic way of doing things - at least I'd have a variety of choices!
id prefer it if the minority did not control my country or my lunch
it would seem givng every one a vote would do that
Lots of people including myself have been saying it long before this election.Would you have said that if Clinton had only won the electoral college and not the popular vote?
That is profoundly naive. They also set up our "republic" and its economy based on slavery. The real question is whether the premise and need for the electoral college is still valid today?There is a reason our founding fathers set up our democracy in this manner and it has worked forever
Lots of people including myself have been saying it long before this election.
That is profoundly naive. They also set up our "republic" and its economy based on slavery. The real question is whether the premise and need for the electoral college is still valid today?
I think that to qualify as a voter one must take and pass the same test that persons take to become a citizen of the US. Then do away with the E.C.
How exactly is that relevant? How many of those "other countries around the world" were declaring human equality at their founding while practicing slavery?Never mind that other countries were engaged in slavery around the world, eh?
No race card here just ignorant and irrelevant comments by you.Playing the race card on the entire founding of the country is sure going to win your argument.
WTF are you blabbering about?The real question, why cant the left quit crying about it and do something legitimately through the constitutional process for once?
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?