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.
"Despite what many of today’s activists would have us believe, the anti-democratic institutions of the American Republic are just as vital now as they were over 200 years ago.
For example, the Electoral College ensures that individuals elected to the presidency don’t only have the support of the population-heavy coasts, but broad support throughout the entire country. The function of the Electoral College is to respect and represent the states as sovereign entities within our federal system.
Likewise for the Senate. Each state is represented equally in the Senate, irrespective of population, size or prestige. As a check upon democratic extremes, the Senate was even more effective before the unfortunate enactment of the 17th Amendment in 1913 subjected senators to direct election by voters rather than by individual state legislatures.
Finally, the Supreme Court is perhaps the least democratic institution of all. The court’s members are given lifetime appointments by presidents elected via the Electoral College, subject to no democratic oversight or elections. Justices are called upon to decide cases and controversies according to what the law demands, not according to their personal preferences or the passions and prejudices of the electorate."
The Constitution, just like the Bible, is infallible.
bunch of arguing over symantics - move one its still the best place on earth to live.
No, this is not just semantics.
We are getting to the heart of who wants to banish the Electoral College and elect the president by a popular vote, rather than having "Electors" as required by the US Constitution.
Those of us who want to keep the Electoral College are trying to underscore the Republican form of government our Founders wisely gave to us.
Those who want to banish the Electoral College are calling us a Democracy, i.e. - a direct vote for the POTUS, completely circuventing the states in the process. The building blocks of the nation are the states, not the people. It requires a constitutional amendment to make that change to the US constitution.
This is being pushed by those calling us a "Democracy", rather than acknowledging our Republican form of government.
Last edited by Igor Blevin; 12-02-2022 at 09:00 AM..
We are getting to the heart of who wants to banish the Electoral College and elect the president by a popular vote, rather than having "Electors" as required by the US Constitution.
Those of us who want to keep the Electoral College are trying to underscore the Republican form of government our Founders wisely gave to us.
Thos who want to banish the Electoral College are calling us a Democracy, which logically means we should all vote directly for the president, with the winner being chosen by the one with the most votes, completely circumventing the sovereign states in the process. It requires a constitutional amendment to make that change to the US constitution. This is being pushed by those calling us a "Democracy", rather than acknowledging our Republican form of government.
Those of us who want to keep the Electoral College are trying to underscore the Republican form of government our Founders wisely gave to us.
Yeah I'm definitely not opposing any of that. I definitely favor reform of the EC for electing the president- which is a federal and not a state-related position. I also very much like the republic form of government of federated states, and I'm very down to keep that. The US is both a republic and a democracy, and that's apparently a fact too complicated for some of the shining intellectuals in this thread to handle. There's an interplay of multiple concepts going on there, just like almost any other country you can point to in the world.
We do vote for the president, you know. That's this thing called, "democracy".
People prefer to live around others who agree with their values.
Some people prefer to have rainbow flags and black lives matter signs around them.
Other people prefer to have blue line flags and blue porch lights around them.
It's all about choice.
You missed primaltech's point:
"There'd be no conflict, we could live in harmony, if people would just leave everyone else alone, and mind their own damn business."
I don't give flying frick if my neighbor has a blue porch light or a BLM sign. A good neighbor is one who will lend a hand when you need one, and otherwise respects your privacy. Why do you feel the need to be around people that think just like you?
Winner-take-all is not mandated in the constitution. And 2 states don't do it that way (Maine and Nebraska).
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.
