Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
a Republic is a specific form of democracy, there for, we are a democracy.
Nah.... I think he's right.
We are always talking about "the will of the people" and "Democracy" which by definition, implies that majority rules. That gives people false expectations of how the system is supposed to work and how outcomes are determined in our system of government.
We are always talking about "the will of the people" and "Democracy" which by definition, implies that majority rules. That gives people false expectations of how the system is supposed to work and how outcomes are determined in our system of government.
Saying a republic isnt a democracy is the equivalent of saying a square isnt a rectangle.
a Republic is simply a very specific form of Democracy.
Also, our system of government is indeed majority rules. If there is a big enough majority, our system allows you to change any law.
Saying a republic isnt a democracy is the equivalent of saying a square isnt a rectangle.
a Republic is simply a very specific form of Democracy.
Also, our system of government is indeed majority rules. If there is a big enough majority, our system allows you to change any law.
But we're not a 51/100 rules type of democracy, and that's what people think of when they think of a Democracy. We are a Democracy with shades of gray. We are a Democracy where the minority still retains some power.
This is part of the reason that some people are so upset about the election. People see that Clinton got more votes than Trump, and don't understand why she's not the winner, because they don't understand how the system is designed to work or why it was designed to work that way. They see the outcome as a flaw in the system when actually it's a function of it.
This is part of the reason that some people are so upset about the election. People see that Clinton got more votes than Trump, and don't understand why she's not the winner, because they don't understand how the system is designed to work or why it was designed to work that way. They see the outcome as a flaw in the system when actually it's a function of it.
People are upset because the individual that a majority of the nation voted for did not become president. People who are upset fully understand the system we have in place. Wanting to change that system has nothing to do with whether or not you understand it.
I can remember election night in 2012, when my newly poplitical friends actually thought the geographical size of a state mattered more than population and where shocked that with all the red on the map that Mitt Romney lost. NOW THAT is truly not understanding the system.
And further more, lets be clear, the system was never designed for this kind of election, so its not fair to argue that this was an intended function. I highly doubt the founding fathers intended for there to ever be a popular vote let alone that the loser of it would not be elected president.
the electoral college actually exists so that population overall is taken into account instead of just free white men.
There are 2 problems with that.
1. Women and black people can now vote.
2. Proportionality of electoral votes makes more sense than winner take all.
People are upset because the individual that a majority of the nation voted for did not become president. People who are upset fully understand the system we have in place. Wanting to change that system has nothing to do with whether or not you understand it.
I can remember election night in 2012, when my newly poplitical friends actually thought the geographical size of a state mattered more than population and where shocked that with all the red on the map that Mitt Romney lost. NOW THAT is truly not understanding the system.
And further more, lets be clear, the system was never designed for this kind of election, so its not fair to argue that this was an intended function. I highly doubt the founding fathers intended for there to ever be a popular vote let alone that the loser of it would not be elected president.
the electoral college actually exists so that population overall is taken into account instead of just free white men.
There are 2 problems with that.
1. Women and black people can now vote.
2. Proportionality of electoral votes makes more sense than winner take all.
The majority of the nation "voted" for none of the above. 43% of the country didn't even bother to vote for one of these two clowns. Continuing to say that "the majority" wanted Clinton is just another false news story and lie.
The majority of the nation "voted" for none of the above. 43% of the country didn't even bother to vote for one of these two clowns. Continuing to say that "the majority" wanted Clinton is just another false news story and lie.
People are upset because the individual that a majority of the nation voted for did not become president. People who are upset fully understand the system we have in place. Wanting to change that system has nothing to do with whether or not you understand it.
I guess it's hard to tell who understands the system but wants it changed, and who just plain doesn't understand the system and has false expectations about what determines the outcome.
Quote:
And further more, lets be clear, the system was never designed for this kind of election, so its not fair to argue that this was an intended function. I highly doubt the founding fathers intended for there to ever be a popular vote let alone that the loser of it would not be elected president.
Ok, that's a fair point, but the Electoral College still performs the core function it was designed for; preventing the large states from having a completely dominating influence over the Federal government.
Quote:
2. Proportionality of electoral votes makes more sense than winner take all.
Well what do ya know.... you and I have found something we completely agree on. I'd like to retain the electoral college but do away with the winner take all system and assign a states electoral votes based on the percentage of the popular vote in that state. That way Dems in TX and Repubs in CA would have a reason to go vote.
Saying a republic isnt a democracy is the equivalent of saying a square isnt a rectangle.
a Republic is simply a very specific form of Democracy.
Also, our system of government is indeed majority rules. If there is a big enough majority, our system allows you to change any law.
More precisely, a Republican is not a DIRECT democracy.
Now to provide some perspective, in all likelihood, in a direct democracy, the majority of eligible voters would have been against freeing the slaves. Not just in the south, NYC was tepid about joining the union as trading slaves at auction was a major NYC industry 155 years ago. Direct democracies are breeding grounds for tyranny by the majority.
The low educated people from the small backwater states wanted a Fascist Nazi dictator for president and that is what we will get. Can't imagine that this is what James Madison and his associates desired.
Prove any of that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
