specifically, it's a constitutional republic, and that distinction is VERY important. the constitution is the rule of the law, and all elections and decisions must be made with that document in mind, and NOT the will, or more accurately, the whim of the people.
Sigh. A constitutional republic IS A DEMOCRACY. It's one of many forms of a democracy. You claimed that the US form of government isn't a democracy, BUT IT IS.
It's the fairest way.
absurd. so CA and NY can dictate the president and ignore the "fly over states"? the whole point of the electoral college is to protect the minority voice. a pure democracy is a dictatorship by the majority with no checks and balances for the minority voice
This is one of the most repeated false arguments against direct election of the president.
California and New York would have the same sway in presidential elections that large cities have in gubernatorial elections -- in exact, direction proportion to the number of voters who vote. One person, one vote, no matter where they live.
Why would presidential candidates campaign solely in California and New York? Together, they represent only 18 percent of the population, so 82 percent of the population live elsewhere. How are 18 percent going to dictate the election?
This "fly-over states" argument is also ridiculous. What makes you think presidential candidates spend any time there now during the general election? How do you define "fly-over states"? Would Utah, Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, Tennessee, and Kentucky qualify? Well, guess what? They are totally ignored now, as is any state that is reliably for one candidate or the other.
Small states like Iowa and New Hampshire get their moment to shine in the primaries, but thanks to the Electoral College, the general election is all about a few swing states. Do Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida sound like fly-over states to you? That's where the candidates spent most of their time.
States where three-fourths of the population live shouldn't get ignored, but that's how it works with the Electoral College.
(at least one and perhaps two Washington state electors have said they won't vote for Clinton, despite the fact that Clinton won the state).
and they should be fired immediately
Ha! I guess you don't understand how this whole Electoral College thing works. First, there's no one to "fire" them. They have been appointed to be a member of the Electoral College, and pretty much the only way they can be replaced is if they die.
The Constitution doesn't say an Elector has to vote according to the result for that state. Only about half the states have any consequence for being a rogue voter, usually a fine, and of the 157 Electors who changed their vote in the Electoral College, none have ever been prosecuted.
Second, the Electoral College is actually designed to encourage rogue Electors. The founders thought Electors would be political insiders who were more knowledgeable than the general populace and could make more educated decisions, which means that they would expect them to choose differently than the voters, if they felt the need.
why stop there? any other parts of the constitution you'd like to rewrite? 1st amendment? 2nd amendment? it's not a relic, it's the backbone
Since it was originally ratified, along with the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments), there have been 17 additional amendments, so the Constitution has been deemed worthy of change quite a few times. The mechanism for changing the Constitution was built right in to the Constitution. The founders expected it to be amended repeatedly over time.
The Electoral College is not the backbone of the Constitution. Establishing the three branches of government, the system of checks and balances between the branches, and the guaranteed rights of individuals are the backbone of the Constitution. The Electoral College is a compromise solution required to appease slave states that has not held up well over time.
People expect and want the candidate who wins to be the one who gets the most votes. That's the way it works for absolutely every other elective office in the country. POTUS shouldn't be any different.
reply
share
brclpp
7 years ago
Sigh. A constitutional republic IS A DEMOCRACY.
sigh back at ya....
no, it is NOT. it's a REPUBLIC.
republic vs democracy:
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_RepublicTHIS DISTINCTION MATTERS. maybe not to you, since you want to amend and change the current system to your will because your person didn't win the last election and apparently, that's all it takes for you to throw the baby out with the bath water
my online writing style is one of speed and apathy, NOT ignorance
reply
share
justwrite3
7 years ago
Did you even read the page you linked to? How about this part (bold emphasis mine):
This comparison therefore contrasts the form of government in most countries today with a theoretical construct of a "pure democracy", mainly to highlight the features of a republic.
Or the part where the author says, "Most modern nations are democratic republics with a constitution".
So, you see, a constitutional republic is a form of democracy. A democracy and a republic are not mutually exclusive, and in fact, they often go together.
The page you linked to doesn't say anything about how the chief executive is elected. The sole point it makes is that a constitution enumerates rights that cannot be taken away by the government or the voters. He contrasts that with a theoretical "pure" democracy that has no constitution where the majority can abridge the rights of the minority on a whim, a theoretical "pure" democracy that has never existed.
Again, this distinction has nothing to do with the inherent flaws of the Electoral College or that president is the only elected office where the person getting the most votes can lose.
reply
share