What's new
By:
Filters

The United States is NOT a democracy and never was

Hahaha…


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M_w3_-2JfZc

Recognizing demagogues may require an educated citizenry:


theamericanscholar.org

The Virtue of an Educated Voter - The American Scholar

The Founders believed that a well-informed electorate preserves our fragile democracy and benefits American society as a whole
theamericanscholar.org theamericanscholar.org

Our very own demagogue. He loves the poorly educated, as do most demagogues:


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpdt7omPoa0

I guess we’re in troubled waters…

www.theguardian.com

The Age of the Strongman by Gideon Rachman review – democracy muscled out?

This chilling examination of how the growing popularity of autocrats and their aspirants could upend western liberal values is forceful and timely
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
Last edited:
One Brow said:
Is there some large group advocating for mob rule that I'm not aware of? Is there some large group suggesting significant changes?
Click to expand...
Yes. It is called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact and they've got 15 states plus Washington DC signed on. It is also quite common to hear people in media calling for the electoral college to be abolished every presidential election year. Although less common, there are also those calling for Presidents to get a set number of Supreme Court nominations to make that branch too more subject to democracy. Yes there is a large group and yes they are vocal.

One Brow said:
Maybe you didn't pick up on this, so I'll clarify it for you. When you start talking about how we're not a democracy, etc., and there is no context of changing things in our country, it reads a great deal as if you trying to propagandize a reduction in the level of democratic norms in this country, such as when legislatures give themselves the power to overturn elections. Can you provide a context aside from a push like this?
Click to expand...
What I am trying to do is educate. Our form of government is a republic and it is shocking to me that so many people want to argue that point.

One Brow said:
More generally, how do you feel about bills like Fillmore's of Arizona, which would allow legislatures to reject election results (yes, I know it doesn't have any chance of passing)?
Click to expand...
I don't know enough about it but generally speaking if they were wanting the power to reject election results for in-state positions and make all government autocratic then I'm against it. The same would go for elections for House members but I would cheer any effort to repeal the 17th amendment. As for Presidential elections, I don't live in Arizona and the US Constitution gives the power of how to allocate electoral votes entirely up to the states. The President is not a democratically elected position. The President is elected by the electoral college and I am fond of that system.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
Yes. It is called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact and they've got 15 states plus Washington DC signed on. It is also quite common to hear people in media calling for the electoral college to be abolished every presidential election year. Although less common, there are also those calling for Presidents to get a set number of Supreme Court nominations to make that branch too more subject to democracy. Yes there is a large group and yes they are vocal.
Click to expand...
1) We'd still still be a republic if the President were elected based on popular vote margin. Further, that candidate would need to have support of major political parties. That's not mob rule, or anything close.
2) Youi say below that you support Arizona and that the assignment of electoral votes should be up to the states. The individual states can choose to enter the NPVIC or not. This process is them deciding how their electoral votes should be assigned.
3) Giving each President 2 nominations to SCOTUS isn't more democratic than some Presidents nominating 3 in a 4-year term, others nominating 1 or none. It's just less random.

Al-O-Meter said:
What I am trying to do is educate. Our form of government is a republic and it is shocking to me that so many people want to argue that point.
Click to expand...
It's not shocking to me, because of the context we are in, where one party is trying to diminish the importance of democracy.

Al-O-Meter said:
I don't know enough about it but generally speaking if they were wanting the power to reject election results for in-state positions and make all government autocratic then I'm against it.
Click to expand...
So, you support "mob rule" for state positions?

Al-O-Meter said:
The same would go for elections for House members but I would cheer any effort to repeal the 17th amendment.
Click to expand...
So, you support "mob rule" for the positions that would elect a US Senator, but nor for the Senator themself?

The 17th Amendment didn't happen in a vacuum. Which of the issues discussed in this link do you feel no longer apply?
en.wikipedia.org

Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

In particular, there was a problem with appointments to the Senate dominating state issues in the election of state legislatures.

Al-O-Meter said:
The President is not a democratically elected position. The President is elected by the electoral college and I am fond of that system.
Click to expand...
I have no objection to the electoral college.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
Yes. It is called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact and they've got 15 states plus Washington DC signed on. It is also quite common to hear people in media calling for the electoral college to be abolished every presidential election year. Although less common, there are also those calling for Presidents to get a set number of Supreme Court nominations to make that branch too more subject to democracy. Yes there is a large group and yes they are vocal.

What I am trying to do is educate. Our form of government is a republic and it is shocking to me that so many people want to argue that point.

I don't know enough about it but generally speaking if they were wanting the power to reject election results for in-state positions and make all government autocratic then I'm against it. The same would go for elections for House members but I would cheer any effort to repeal the 17th amendment. As for Presidential elections, I don't live in Arizona and the US Constitution gives the power of how to allocate electoral votes entirely up to the states. The President is not a democratically elected position. The President is elected by the electoral college and I am fond of that system.
Click to expand...

Can you tell me how many presidential elections would have had a different result if we used popular vote rather than electoral college? (Spoiler alert, popular vote and electoral vote typically have the same candidate as the winner)


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app
 
fishonjazz said:
Can you tell me how many presidential elections would have had a different result if we used popular vote rather than electoral college? (Spoiler alert, popular vote and electoral vote typically have the same candidate as the winner)
Click to expand...
The loser of the popular vote being elected President by the EC happens about 11% of the time.
 
One Brow said:
So, you support "mob rule" for state positions? So, you support "mob rule" for the positions that would elect a US Senator, but nor for the Senator themself?
Click to expand...
I support the appearance of democracy with the importance decreasing inversely with the number of people affected by the position. Your local mayor, school board, etc., should be democratically elected. The Congressmen for your district, fine. The Senator for the entire state, less so. The President of the United States and the Supreme Court, no.

I think democracy is a good way to release societal pressure. It makes people think they have a voice and don't need to resort to revolution to make changes. That is the good part about democracy. The bad part is how fickle, prone to panic, and easily manipulated people have proven to be throughout history. For the local and smaller jobs I'm all for democracy but in the bigger jobs, I like to see the types of hard constraints on power that popular opinion alone does not provide.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
The loser of the popular vote being elected President by the EC happens about 11% of the time.
Click to expand...
Most recently, this happened with Trump in 2016 and Bush in 2000 vs. Gore. We'd have to go all the way back to the 1800's prior to that with Harrison and Hayes.

I can't the EC going anywhere anytime soon as abolishing it isn't a new concept and passage through the House and Senate is unrealistic.
 
Avery said:
Most recently, this happened with Trump in 2016 and Bush in 2000 vs. Gore. We'd have to go all the way back to the 1800's prior to that with Harrison and Hayes.

I can't the EC going anywhere anytime soon as abolishing it isn't a new concept and passage through the House and Senate is unrealistic.
Click to expand...
It probably will never happen because the EC will always favor, even if only slightly, one party over the other so you'll likely never get a consensus that you'd need to pass an amendment.
 
Gameface said:
It probably will never happen because the EC will always favor, even if only slightly, one party over the other so you'll likely never get a consensus that you'd need to pass an amendment.
Click to expand...
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would effectively end the EC and it is not a Constitutional amendment. It wouldn't even need to pass the House or the Senate as a bill. If enough states sign on then the popular vote will elect the President.

en.wikipedia.org

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Al-O-Meter said:
For the local and smaller jobs I'm all for democracy but in the bigger jobs, I like to see the types of hard constraints on power that popular opinion alone does not provide.
Click to expand...
I agree, but unfortunately those constraints are not imposed by allowing power brokers (aka state legislatures) to decide who holds the reins of power. The constraints come from the rule of law and the cultural expectations of following those rules. The filibuster (and other various rules of the Senate and House) does more to impose constraints than the appointment of Senators ever would.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would effectively end the EC and it is not a Constitutional amendment. It wouldn't even need to pass the House or the Senate as a bill. If enough states sign on then the popular vote will elect the President.
Click to expand...
Unless states decide to back out. It still comes down to every state choosing how to decide their EC votes.
 
gandalfe said:
So, are you opposed to each state deciding how to apportion their votes?
Click to expand...
In that way, yes. I oppose it. I can recognize their right to do it and can even applaud their inventiveness in the method they've come up with to circumvent passing a constitutional amendment, but I hope it never comes to pass. If it does happen, I don't think the United States will survive as a union in its current form more than 2 decades after ratification of that compact.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
In that way, yes. I oppose it. I can recognize their right to do it and can even applaud their inventiveness in the method they've come up with to circumvent passing a constitutional amendment, but I hope it never comes to pass. If it does happen, I don't think the United States will survive as a union in its current form more than 2 decades after ratification of that compact.
Click to expand...
But it is literally in the constitution that they can determine how to determine their electors. I thought you were all about abiding by the constitution above all else?
 
gandalfe said:
But it is literally in the constitution that they can determine how to determine their electors. I thought you were all about abiding by the constitution above all else?
Click to expand...
It is like the old first amendment line of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". I do not see a contradiction in recognizing the constitutional right granted to the states to apportion their votes in this manner -AND- my personally disagreeing with the states choosing to make that choice. Yes they can do it, and no I hope they do not.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
If it does happen, I don't think the United States will survive as a union in its current form more than 2 decades after ratification of that compact.
Click to expand...
Do go on. Tell us how a popularly elected President leads tot he destruction of the union in its current form.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top