• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New York does away with Electoral College

Like I said; "It will be great without your bs."

Yet you continue to spew. :doh Figures.

I said I also hope it's swell.

That's different than it being great.

Now go back over to the thread where you're arguing that the Nazis were Socialists and prove your claims.
 
It does elect the real winner-- this is a federal system.

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it would be wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

With the Electoral College and federalism, the Founding Fathers meant to empower the states to pursue their own interests within the confines of the Constitution. The National Popular Vote is an exercise of that power, not an attack upon it.

The Electoral College is now the set of 538 dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for their party’s presidential candidate. That is not what the Founders intended.

During the course of campaigns, candidates are educated and campaign about the local, regional, and state issues most important to the handful of battleground states they need to win. They take this knowledge and prioritization with them once they are elected. Candidates need to be educated and care about all of our states.

[h=1]The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, in 2012 did not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. 10 of the original 13 states are ignored now. Candidates had no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they were safely ahead or hopelessly behind.[/h]
80% of the states and people were just spectators to the presidential election. That's more than 85 million voters, 200 million Americans.

Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

Since World War II, a shift of a few thousand votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections

The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.

Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. When states with a combined total of at least 270 electoral votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ Electoral College votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes.
States have the responsibility and power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond.

Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national government. The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).
 
98.2% of the Presidential Elections were decided by the person who got the most electoral votes and only the electoral tie of 1800 kept it from being 100%. You may want your vote to go directly to your presidential candidate, but it doesn't. A bigger travesty would be to have the electoral votes of your state go to a person who didn't win your state just because of this proposed electoral suicide pact.

. . .
Just like sports, political elections involve getting the most votes (wins) in each election (series) participated. There are 52 elections for president. 51 to decide electors and then the vote of the Electoral College. If there is a tie, the House decides. Imagine the outrage that would ensue should there be the need for a recount as a result of the initiative. You can't force every state to do a recount because they are state elections, but are we going to do a recount in California even though the D won 60% of the vote because the national D candidate needed it to be 61% to win the national election?
. .. ..
National Popular VOte is not an electoral suicide pact.

National Popular Vote allows individual states to use their unqualified and absolute right to have the Electoral College accomplish a goal that more than two-thirds of Americans, throughout the country, have consistently supported since polling on this began in 1944.

States enacting National Popular Vote replace their state or district winner-take-all laws to guarantee every vote, everywhere, in every election matters to the candidates, is equal and counts, and the candidate with the most votes in the country wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

National Popular Vote did not invent popular elections. Having election results determined by the candidate getting the most individual votes is not some scary, untested idea loaded with unintended consequences.

“The bottom line is that the electors from those states who cast their ballot for the nationwide vote winner are completely accountable (to the extent that independent agents are ever accountable to anyone) to the people of those states. The NPV states aren’t delegating their Electoral College votes to voters outside the state; they have made a policy choice about the substantive intelligible criteria (i.e., national popularity) that they want to use to make their selection of electors. There is nothing in Article II (or elsewhere in the Constitution) that prevents them from making the decision that, in the Twenty-First Century, national voter popularity is a (or perhaps the) crucial factor in worthiness for the office of the President.” - Vikram David Amar

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls
in recent or past closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA --75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%;
in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%;
in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and
in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%.

In state polls of voters each with a second question that specifically emphasized that their state's electoral votes would be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states, not necessarily their state's winner, there was only a 4-8% decrease of support.

Question 1: "How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current Electoral College system?"

Question 2: "Do you think it more important that a state's electoral votes be cast for the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in that state, or is it more important to guarantee that the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states becomes president?"

Support for a National Popular Vote
South Dakota -- 75% for Question 1, 67% for Question 2.
Connecticut -- 74% for Question 1, 68% for Question 2,
Utah -- 70% for Question 1, 66% for Question 2
 
Obama won the majority of the votes in 2012. As did every other president save four. It is not clear why he, or any other one, would have campaigned any differently under the proposed revision.

Of course a nationwide campaign would be different.

Candidates would not spend more than 99% of campaign attention showered on voters in just ten states.

80% of the states and people would not be merely spectators to presidential elections.

A nationwide presidential campaign, with every voter equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida. In the 4 states that accounted for over two-thirds of all general-election activity in the 2012 presidential election, rural areas, suburbs, exurbs, and cities all received attention—roughly in proportion to their population.

The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

With National Popular Vote, when every voter is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren't so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.

Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don't campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don't control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn't have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election.

In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.

Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.

There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states.

With a national popular vote, every voter everywhere will be equally important politically. There will be nothing special about a vote cast in a big city or big state. When every voter is equal, candidates of both parties will seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win. A vote cast in a big city or state will be equal to a vote cast in a small state, town, or rural area.

Candidates would have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as waitress mom voters in Ohio.

With National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Wining states would not be the goal. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in the current handful of swing states.
 
I said I also hope it's swell.

That's different than it being great.

Now go back over to the thread where you're arguing that the Nazis were Socialists and prove your claims.
Ahhh, still spewing I see. Cry me a river.
:doh iLOL
 
There are 52 elections for president. 51 to decide electors and then the vote of the Electoral College. If there is a tie, the House decides. Imagine the outrage that would ensue should there be the need for a recount as a result of the initiative. You can't force every state to do a recount because they are state elections, but are we going to do a recount in California even though the D won 60% of the vote because the national D candidate needed it to be 61% to win the national election?

With National Popular Vote there would still be state controlled elections. Electors would still vote to elect the President. There could never be a tie or no candidate receiving the needed majority of Electoral College votes. An election would never be thrown into Congress (with 10% approval rating now?) to decide, regardless of the votes of the public.

With both the current system and the National Popular Vote approach, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a "final determination" prior to the common nationwide date for the meeting of the Electoral College. In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the states are expected to make their "final determination" six days before the Electoral College meets.

Existing federal law (the "safe harbor" provision in section 5 of title 3 of the United States Code) specifies that a state's "final determination" of its presidential election returns is "conclusive"(if done in a timely manner and in accordance with laws that existed prior to Election Day).

The National Popular Vote compact is patterned directly after existing federal law and requires each state to treat as "conclusive" each other state's "final determination" of its vote for President. No state has any power to examine or judge the presidential election returns of any other state under the National Popular Vote compact.
 
National Popular VOte is not an electoral suicide pact.

National Popular Vote allows individual states to use their unqualified and absolute right to have the Electoral College accomplish a goal that more than two-thirds of Americans, throughout the country, have consistently supported since polling on this began in 1944.

States enacting National Popular Vote replace their state or district winner-take-all laws to guarantee every vote, everywhere, in every election matters to the candidates, is equal and counts, and the candidate with the most votes in the country wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

National Popular Vote did not invent popular elections. Having election results determined by the candidate getting the most individual votes is not some scary, untested idea loaded with unintended consequences.

“The bottom line is that the electors from those states who cast their ballot for the nationwide vote winner are completely accountable (to the extent that independent agents are ever accountable to anyone) to the people of those states. The NPV states aren’t delegating their Electoral College votes to voters outside the state; they have made a policy choice about the substantive intelligible criteria (i.e., national popularity) that they want to use to make their selection of electors. There is nothing in Article II (or elsewhere in the Constitution) that prevents them from making the decision that, in the Twenty-First Century, national voter popularity is a (or perhaps the) crucial factor in worthiness for the office of the President.” - Vikram David Amar

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls
in recent or past closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA --75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%;
in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%;
in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and
in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%.

In state polls of voters each with a second question that specifically emphasized that their state's electoral votes would be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states, not necessarily their state's winner, there was only a 4-8% decrease of support.

Question 1: "How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current Electoral College system?"

Question 2: "Do you think it more important that a state's electoral votes be cast for the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in that state, or is it more important to guarantee that the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states becomes president?"

Support for a National Popular Vote
South Dakota -- 75% for Question 1, 67% for Question 2.
Connecticut -- 74% for Question 1, 68% for Question 2,
Utah -- 70% for Question 1, 66% for Question 2

Please don't cherry pick one point and then reply with a spammy answer. I'm not interested in engaging you when you do that. Deal with my question about recounts or a tie and I may respond again.
 
Under the Electoral College, the candidate with the most votes wins. If Bush carries Florida, he gets the votes of Florida, if Gore wins California, he gets the votes of California. And onward and onward.

It does not preserve state control of elections (I realize you are talking here about the actual mechanics of the polls). They lose control of elections, because , as you mentioned elsewhere, nobody would have cared about a 537 vote discrepency in Florida.
Except the voters of Florida...

That is why it will not last.

The Electoral College is now the set of 538 dedicated party activists, who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates. In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state. This is not what the Founding Fathers intended.

The state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) in 48 states are not in the U.S. Constitution. In 1789, only 3 states used the "winner-take-all" system based on the statewide popular vote. Similar laws in other states only became prevalent decades after the deaths of the Founding Fathers. 2 states do not use the system.

“The bottom line is that the electors from those states who cast their ballot for the nationwide vote winner are completely accountable (to the extent that independent agents are ever accountable to anyone) to the people of those states. The NPV states aren’t delegating their Electoral College votes to voters outside the state; they have made a policy choice about the substantive intelligible criteria (i.e., national popularity) that they want to use to make their selection of electors. There is nothing in Article II (or elsewhere in the Constitution) that prevents them from making the decision that, in the Twenty-First Century, national voter popularity is a (or perhaps the) crucial factor in worthiness for the office of the President.” - Vikram David Amar

A survey of Florida voters showed 78% overall support for a national popular vote for President.

By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote was 88% among Democrats, 68% among Republicans, and 76% among others.

By gender, support for a national popular vote was 88% among women and 69% among men.

By age, support for a national popular vote was 79% among 18-29 year olds, 78% among 30-45 year olds, 76% among 46-65 year olds, and 80% for those older than 65.

Current federal law (Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code) requires the states to report the November popular vote numbers (the "canvas") in what is called a "Certificate of Ascertainment." Floridians and others will be able to see the Certificates of Ascertainment for all 50 states and the District of Columbia containing the official count of the popular vote at the NARA web site.

NationalPopularVote
 
It doesn't matter-- states can change the law and opt out

The National Popular Vote bill says: "Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except that a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term."

An interstate compact is not a mere “handshake” agreement. If a state wants to rely on the goodwill and graciousness of other states to follow certain policies, it can simply enact its own state law and hope that other states decide to act in an identical manner. If a state wants a legally binding and enforceable mechanism by which it agrees to undertake certain specified actions only if other states agree to take other specified actions, it enters into an interstate compact.

Interstate compacts are supported by over two centuries of settled law guaranteeing enforceability. Interstate compacts exist because the states are sovereign. If there were no Compacts Clause in the U.S. Constitution, a state would have no way to enter into a legally binding contract with another state. The Compacts Clause, supported by the Impairments Clause, provides a way for a state to enter into a contract with other states and be assured of the enforceability of the obligations undertaken by its sister states. The enforceability of interstate compacts under the Impairments Clause is precisely the reason why sovereign states enter into interstate compacts. Without the Compacts Clause and the Impairments Clause, any contractual agreement among the states would be, in fact, no more than a handshake.
 
Any state not given equal representation will succeed from the union.

States don't have equal representation in the Electoral College.
Wyoming has 3 votes. California 55
 
You're right about the Comitia Centuirata, but those were assemblies of citizens - not active members of the army. All citizens who met the requisite property qualifications were members of the Comitia Centuriata. The confusion with soldiers I think comes from the fact that the Centuriata was organized along military lines (a century was the basic Roman army organizational unit) and citizens acting in the centuriata were considered soldiers and as such could not act within the city walls - hence the fact that voting took place on the Campus Martius which was outside the city. But they weren't active duty. The Romans also considered all comita to be democratic organizations that represented the will of the Roman people regardless of whether all citizens were members or not.

Looking at it closer I realize I am wrong about the "popular election" comment. Each century had one vote and that vote was cast based on the majority of votes within century - superficially similar to the electoral college.

Comitia Tributa was open to all citizens - there were no property qualifications as far as I know.


I have to think more about the rest of your post. I had started drafting a response disagreeing with you about the nature of democratically elected bodies - like the House of Representatives - but realized there were some serious inconsistencies in my position so I have to go back to the drawing board.


since you seem to like history like myself i will give you a story about democracy, and how the people can be seduced, beguiled and lead to do things which are not in their interest.

during the Peloponnesian War between the Athenians and Spartans which had be going on for years, neither side had been able to defeat the other, the Athenian statesman, orator, and general Alcibiades proposed a plan to invade the the island of Sicily, ...why?

because he was looking for glory, conquest, and the admiration of women.

because he was a very smooth talking statesman "orator" he pursued the people of Athens to accept his plan, even though the Athenians were already locked into a war with Sparta.

the Athenians with there powerful navy set sail for Sicily, were they fought with Sicilians, even though they have posed no threat to the Athens, the Athenians were defeated, losing most of their navy, which had been used to fight the Spartans, this left the Athenians weak and the Spartans attacked and defeated what was left of Athens military, ..the Spartans entered the city bringing down democracy in Athens, and Sparta the masters of Greece for the next 25 years.

the people are gullible, and can be seduced by smooth talking people...IE Hitler, so to prevent this from happening in America their are checks and balances in the constitution, one i stated his the dividing of power, between the states and the people ....another is the classification of senators..class 1-2-3

this checks the people from throwing every politicians of the senate out at the same time, by say a sudden passion......senators are staggered and only a 1/3 is elected every 2 years.....to prevent any kaos, or the taking over of government by an outside political body...because the people did not think .......before they acted.
 
Last edited:
The National Popular Vote bill says: "Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except that a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term."

An interstate compact is not a mere “handshake” agreement. If a state wants to rely on the goodwill and graciousness of other states to follow certain policies, it can simply enact its own state law and hope that other states decide to act in an identical manner. If a state wants a legally binding and enforceable mechanism by which it agrees to undertake certain specified actions only if other states agree to take other specified actions, it enters into an interstate compact.

Interstate compacts are supported by over two centuries of settled law guaranteeing enforceability. Interstate compacts exist because the states are sovereign. If there were no Compacts Clause in the U.S. Constitution, a state would have no way to enter into a legally binding contract with another state. The Compacts Clause, supported by the Impairments Clause, provides a way for a state to enter into a contract with other states and be assured of the enforceability of the obligations undertaken by its sister states. The enforceability of interstate compacts under the Impairments Clause is precisely the reason why sovereign states enter into interstate compacts. Without the Compacts Clause and the Impairments Clause, any contractual agreement among the states would be, in fact, no more than a handshake.

Except, as you have agreed, the Constution gives the state legislatures over choosing electors. A compact cannot super cede that right.

Constitutionally, you are creating a problem.
 
Awesome!!!

You enjoy it now.
Like I said; "It will be great without your bs."
Yet you keep spewing. Go figure.
 
With National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Wining states would not be the goal. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in the current handful of swing states.

Why? The reason why a battleground state is a battleground state is because the electorate there is closely divided.
That's why time is spent there.
It's not a bad happening and makes sense.

It would seem though that the reforms would end that, and candidates would spend their time in their bases, trying to run up the vote. Since it's easier to get somebody to get out to vote for you when they agree, than convincing somebody else to change their vote.
 
Video @: [/FONT][/COLOR]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_35DiUNLZI
More found @: New York joins campaign to end Electoral College role in presidential elections - NY Daily News

Honestly, I think we should get rid of the electoral college. I believe it only makes sense. If we are a democracy, why not be a democracy that elects its highest leader? I mean it only makes sense.. I mean I know what some people are going to say, "hey we arent a democracy, we are a republic!". But you can be a republic and a democracy at the same time. The electoral college is outdated and irrational with our political climate and system.

It's their group of delegates. They can charge them to vote however they want, even if what they are doing is disenfrancizing the citizens of their own state. It's not really any different from the legislature charging the delegates to vote the way the legislature decides regardless of what the citizens of the state prefer -- a return to the status quo ante, back to the way it was before delegates were chosen by popular vote, in other words.

I doubt that it's going to make any difference at all in the overall outcome, though. I suspect that if a state ever does suspect that it will go against the popular vote this agreement will be quickly scotched. Or else their legislature will face hell fire and wrath from the state's voters.
 
Like I said; "It will be great without your bs."
Yet you keep spewing. Go figure.

Awesome!!!

You enjoy it now.
 
States don't have equal representation in the Electoral College.
Wyoming has 3 votes. California 55

Now you are on to something! Those 3 votes have a value in a Presidential election. If we go to a popular vote, Wyoming is just a waste, any candidate that even considers going there would be wasting their time and money.

Now, Republicans hardly campaign in California, only if they have a shot at those 55 votes will they go there. But it's not because California doesn't matter.
 
since you seem to like history like myself i will give you a story about democracy, and how the people can be seduced, beguiled and lead to do things which are not in their interest.

during the Peloponnesian War between the Athenians and Spartans which had be going on for years, neither side had been able to defeat the other, the Athenian statesman, orator, and general Alcibiades proposed a plan to invade the the island of Sicily, ...why?

because he was looking for glory, conquest, and the admiration of women.

because he was a very smooth talking statesman "orator" he pursued the people of Athens to accept his plan, even though the Athenians were already locked into a war with Sparta.

the Athenians with there powerful navy set sail for Sicily, were they fought with Sicilians, even though they have posed no threat to the Athens, the Athenians were defeated, losing most of their navy, which had been used to fight the Spartans, this left the Athenians weak and the Spartans attacked and defeated what was left of Athens military, ..the Spartans entered the city bringing down democracy in Athens, and Sparta the masters of Greece for the next 25 years.

the people are gullible, and can be seduced by smooth talking people...IE Hitler, so to prevent this from happening in America their are checks and balances in the constitution, one i stated his the dividing of power, between the states and the people ....another is the classification of senators..class 1-2-3

this checks the people from throwing every politicians of the senate out at the same time, by say a sudden passion......senators are staggered and only a 1/3 is elected every 2 years.....to prevent any kaos, or the taking over of government by an outside political body...because the people did not think .......before they acted.

Thanks. Interesting story that I wasn't aware of (Though I am Sicilian and gratified that we actually did a war a some point in our history). I've been meaning to read more on Alcibiadas after I finish reading up on Belisarius.

I agree with you that democracy are problematic. Where we disagree is on the idea that popularly elected government - or part of government - makes that government or part democratic. Just because Senators are popularly elected and not appointed by their legislatures doesn't necessarily make the Senate a democratic institution (I don't think). And if it does, since legislatures are democratically elected and express the will of the people does that not too make Senators democratic? I don't know - it's one of the questions I'm trying to work out for myself.
 
Back
Top Bottom