Does Democracy Really Exist in the elections of the USA? An interesting video

Jax Historian

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
4,379
Here
It worked out.

You posted that before "mass media," people would not know "national celebrities." And now we have had pop singers, move actors and TV hosts filling roles in the US Congress and White House. Hooray for "informed" voters.
I haven't been involved in the current political aspects of anything in this thread. I've only discussed what the founders were saying and doing. So I'm not the least bit interested in this post of yours either.
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,756
San Antonio, Tx
I think a pretzel is made of simpler geometries than the strange arguments surrounding the creation of the Electoral College. I’m just appalled. The EC should be abolished tomorrow morning. It is false, undemocratic, unfair and utterly unjustified in terms of electing a president. Yeah, I know, won’t happen, but it should.
 

aggienation

Ad Honorem
Jul 2016
9,813
USA
I think a pretzel is made of simpler geometries than the strange arguments surrounding the creation of the Electoral College. I’m just appalled. The EC should be abolished tomorrow morning. It is false, undemocratic, unfair and utterly unjustified in terms of electing a president. Yeah, I know, won’t happen, but it should.
Appalled? :lol:
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,756
San Antonio, Tx
Only because of California....
This irrelevant. If the winning margin came from New York, would it be, ”Only because of New York”. What you are saying is that my vote is worth less than the vote of someone from Wyoming and that, I can tell you, is completely unacce[table. A win is a win only if it is done fairly. Anything else is just BS and must be changed.
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,756
San Antonio, Tx
Wyoming had 3 EC votes, California had 55, so California is an order of magnitude more important.
The reason that California doesn't get more attention is that it hasn't been competitive for the Republicans since Reagan



No offence taken, I disagree with you on the benefits of a straight popularity contest, so more than happy to debate it. :cool:
If it was a contest where highest number of votes wins then nobody would give a damn about Wyoming or Vermont or Alaska or Montana or Delaware, they would be ignored as the candidates would just focus on the big cities (NYC, LA, Philly, Chicago etc)
This was exactly the reason that the founders set it up as it is.
My take-awayfrom this is that you agree that the votes of people in small, under-populated states are worth more - much more - than those with high populations. That isn’t clever, it’s just plain old-fashioned vote rigging.
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,756
San Antonio, Tx
Agreed



Wikipedia is not exactly the definitive source. :suspicious:
(Note. The section you mention has only one source)

I agree with you about Hamilton, but my point (Not well explained perhaps ) was I believe that very few if any of the founders foresaw an entrenched two party system with the Federal government as strong as it is. I agree with you that the EC was s
Intended to provide good governance. (not to try to give some advantage to a future hypothetical two party regime)
The only two times that I am aware of of the winner being decided by the Electoral Vote majority but not a vote majority both resulted in very weak and ill-informed presidents, the last one being roughly as valuable as a warm bowl of spit.
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,756
San Antonio, Tx
A plainer way saying that is the framers were worried that voters are stupid; so the US wasn't or isn't a "democracy" or a "pure democracy" - depending on definitions.
So, I’m confused by the “logic” of this: it was/is OK to elect senators and representatives based on the popular vote, but not OK to elect a president this way? If that was their reasoning, they were way off base and ALL representatives should be chosen by the Electoral College. But then, we know that’s just ridiculous.
 
Jun 2017
626
maine
Oh boy! Have we ever gone the rounds on this issue here in Maine. We are a democracy because authority rests with the people; we are a republic because that is the form of government we use; we are a constitutional republic because governing is guided by a constitution. A "pure democracy" is direct; we are a representational democracy. The Electoral Congress was not created to even out big state-little state status but to assure that the people wouldn't be voting directly (the Framers worried that the presidential election would be a popularity contest and the country might end up with a demigogue). Originally, the elected electors were to vote for the president but, through the years, it has changed: most states are "winner-take-all" with only Maine and Nebraska having electoral results that reflected the popular vote. The constitution allows each state to handle this as it will.