• 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!

Why we have an electoral college [W:196]

Re: Why we have an electoral college

Your sense of democracy is beyond the pale. A democratic governance has three central elements: the Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary. The first two are duly elected at the national level, the third only at state or local levels.

Just how many times must you be told in order to understand the fundamentals of a democracy?

Moving right along ...

the u.s. was not created a democratic form of government ,read your constitution article 4 section 4

still you make statements on government you know nothing about
 
Re: Why we have an electoral college

the u.s. was not created a democratic form of government ,read your constitution article 4 section 4

Article 4 Section 4: T
he United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government

From the dictionary:
republic: noun
1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
2. any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.
3. a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.

democracy:
1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.
5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.

They are very much the same, just expressed differently. Line 1 in both definitions are almost identical.

And this exchange has nothing whatsoever to do with the original subject, which was "Electoral College" ...
 
Re: Why we have an electoral college

Article 4 Section 4: T

From the dictionary:


They are very much the same, just expressed differently. Line 1 in both definitions are almost identical.

And this exchange has nothing whatsoever to do with the original subject, which was "Electoral College" ...

if its a republican form then it cant be a democratic form of government can it?

the u.s., was created to be a republican form of government which is mixed, mixed government is not democracy

and it has been stated to you and with links the at the EC IS BASED ON THE ROMAN REPUBLIC OF GOVERNMENT....Rome was not democracy
 
Re: Why we have an electoral college

if its a republican form then it cant be a democratic form of government can it?

the u.s., was created to be a republican form of government which is mixed, mixed government is not democracy

and it has been stated to you and with links the at the EC IS BASED ON THE ROMAN REPUBLIC OF GOVERNMENT....Rome was not democracy

I stick to the definitions as I find them in the dictionary. The US is both a republic and a democracy.

Period.
 
Re: Why we have an electoral college

HUH? What? You obviously didn't understand the point.

It seems you don't even understand the point you were trying to make as indicated by the fact you have problems explaining it in this message here. It's most likely either a deflection from what was being talked about or something else.
 
Re: Why we have an electoral college

Mentality between republic and democracy

Aristotle does not use the word democracy and republic interchangeably; neither does Socrates in Plato's Republic.

Aristotle defines a republic as the rule of law. "...it is preferable for the law to rule rather than any one of the citizens, and according to this same principle, even if it be better for certain men to govern, they must be appointed as guardians of the laws and in subordination to them;... the law shall govern seems to recommend that God and reason alone shall govern..." Thomas Jefferson beseeched his countrymen to "bind men down from mischief by the chains of the constitution".

A democracy's mentality is that the people are sovereign and have become a law unto themselves wherefore the phrase vox populi, vox dei. The mentality of Despotism, as it can be seen in the Asian kings of the Pharoahs, Babylonians and Persians, Alexander the Great, his successors and the Roman Emperors starting with Julius Caesar, is that the king or Emperor makes the law so he is God. For the Spartan mindset, the Law, the golden mean, is to rule not men collectively or singly as the Spartan King advises Xerxes at the Battle of Thermopylae, to wit, "The point is that although they're free, they're not entirely free; their master is the law, and they're far more afraid of this than your men are of you. At any rate, they do whatever the law commands...". A man's obedience, loyalty, and fidelity lie in the law and not in persons; the Spartan mindset being, "I'm obedient to the law but under no man".

Aristotle notices that a democracy puts the people above the law: "men ambitious of office by acting as popular leaders bring things to the point of the people's being sovereign even over the laws."

When the law loses respect, Aristotle says in V vii 7 that "constitutional government turns into a democracy". And in that situation, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle fear the possibility that "Tyranny, then arises from no other form of government than democracy." Then, democracies are no more than ochlocracies.
 
Re: Why we have an electoral college

Gene Owens
Constitutional Law
Back to Basics I

What is the Constitution? The Constitution is a contract. The Constitution/contract contains seven short articles, twenty-seven amendments and the Declaration of Independence is tied to the Constitution under article seven. The Constitution was signed on September 17, 1787 by delegates from twelve colonies. Rhode Island, the thirteenth colony, signed later.
In Article 4 Section 4 the Constitution directs: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government,. . ." This article is not referring to any party. There is no party system outlined in the Constitution either in fact or in principle. The word republican is referring to the word republic, which comes from the Latin words res publica; res meaning thing and publica meaning public, the public thing is the law.

One of the most misunderstood and therefore harmful beliefs, to our freedoms, is that millions of American People falsely believe America is a democracy, with rule by majority vote. Article IV Section 4 clearly guarantees every State shall be a republic, there is nothing to argue about. Because Article IV Section 4 defines our form of government as a republic it will remain a republic until an Article V amendment changes that fact. Republic means to rule by law and in America our law is Constitutional Law. All of our representatives take an Oath of Office to support and defend the Constitution and therefore Constitutional Law. When you read the Constitution you are actually studying Constitutional Law.
The misunderstanding, that our form of government is a democracy has been intentional to take freedoms, not to give freedoms. In reality our Founders set up a mixed-constitution, to check the powers of government, with elements of different forms of government in it. We have elements of monarchy or rule by one vested in the president to veto bills and to give pardons. We have elements of oligarchy or rule by few vested in federal and state legislatures to make laws. We have elements of democracy vested in the People to elect our representatives. However, all of these different forms of government must stay within the boundary (pale) and understanding (ken) of the republic, rule by law, or their actions are null and void and of no effect whatsoever.

Article VI Clause 2 directs that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and all treaties and laws must be made within the pale and ken of the Constitution. This same article and clause also directs that all judges in every State shall be bound by the Constitution.
Another interesting fact is that the Constitution is a document or perfect distribution or perfect equipoise; meaning one clause cannot and must not be read as if to stand alone. When our representatives plan a redistribution of the Peoples money, for any reason, under pretense of the commerce clause or the welfare clause they must also look to Article I Section 1 and Section 8, the 5th Amendment, the 9th Amendment and the 10th Amendment.
Article I Section 1 does not allow Congress to do anything that is not an enumerated power; Section 8 list all the powers Congress can act upon; the 5th Amendment forbids the taking of the Peoples money (property) without just compensation; under the 9th Amendment the government has no no right to take property and under the 10th Amendment they have no power to take property.

The Declaration of Independence is not considered law; however, it does point out certain very important issues, such as: our Rights are unalienable and that our Rights are endowed by a Creator. It is fashionable among some Americans today to disregard this statement. To declare that there is no proof of a Creator; however, no man can disprove the existence of a Creator. The words unalienable and inalienable both mean that which cannot be changed, not by majority vote or by a dictator. This statement also directs that are our Rights are endowed by a Creator and not by man.
Clearly our Founding Fathers gave each of us religious freedom to believe as we chose; however, their point was not in what you personally believe but in the fact that man did not create existence. That Rights come from Nature and Nature's God, as written by Thomas Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence. No government can control Nature and change the course of our unalienable Rights.
 
There was a lot of discussion regarding the fact that Hillary won the popular vote and should therefore have won the election. The fact of the matter is that we DO elect our president via popular vote but we do so indirectly. Your vote counts at the state level and then the states vote for president. You might not like it but that's the way it works.....and here's why the system was designed that way -

Politico has the popular vote count at 62.5M for Hillary and 61.2 M for Trump. That's a difference of 1.3M votes and I've heard suggestions that the final total will be Hillary by more than 2 million votes. That's a pretty compelling argument but if you look into it:

PRESIDENT
From the LA County Recorder's office, Hillary got over 2.1 million votes in the county while Trump got less than 700k.

That alone is 1.4 million of Hillary's overage.

Here's the NY Times figures for NY.
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/new-york

The 5 Boroughs that are generally considered to be New York City are Manhattan, Brooklyn, Bronx, Queens and Staten Island. If you look at the votes in those boroughs you'll find that Hillary beat Trump by 1.5 Million votes.

Just TWO CITIES accounted for roughly 150% of Hillary's popular vote win.

THAT, folks, is why we have an electoral college. It prevents the possibility that voters in just two cities can control the election of a president.

why should i want less people spread further apart controlling elections instead?
 
why should i want less people spread further apart controlling elections instead?

The federal government is supposed to be representative of the country as whole. Neither the cities nor the farms are supposed to control the nation but both are supposed to have fair and proportional representation.
 
The federal government is supposed to be representative of the country as whole. Neither the cities nor the farms are supposed to control the nation but both are supposed to have fair and proportional representation.

it would seem givng every one a vote would do that
 
it would seem givng every one a vote would do that

Not at all.

Let's say that you work in an office with 20 other people. Everyone in the office has to pool their money for lunch and everyone has to order from whatever place the group picks. There are 11 people in the Accounting department who vote as a bloc and always vote for anchovy sandwiches. The other 9 people don't like anchovy but, since the majority rules, their preferences are simply dismissed. Does that really sound fair?

Now, let's say that we change the office from a Direct Democracy to a Republic. It's decided that the office as a whole gets 5 votes to be allocated between the four departments. Accounting gets 2 votes because they have the most people. The other departments all get one vote because they each have 3 employees. Now you have a situation where the various departments have to come to some agreement with each other regarding where to go for lunch. That need to reach an agreement means that everyone in the office gets representation with every vote and that no single group can force a decision.
 
Not at all.

Let's say that you work in an office with 20 other people. Everyone in the office has to pool their money for lunch and everyone has to order from whatever place the group picks. There are 11 people in the Accounting department who vote as a bloc and always vote for anchovy sandwiches. The other 9 people don't like anchovy but, since the majority rules, their preferences are simply dismissed. Does that really sound fair?

Now, let's say that we change the office from a Direct Democracy to a Republic. It's decided that the office as a whole gets 5 votes to be allocated between the four departments. Accounting gets 2 votes because they have the most people. The other departments all get one vote because they each have 3 employees. Now you have a situation where the various departments have to come to some agreement with each other regarding where to go for lunch. That need to reach an agreement means that everyone in the office gets representation with every vote and that no single group can force a decision.

probably should not decide your lunch or department spending based on a buisnes wide vote

and if most of your employees are in a large deparmtent but the little ones hold control becase they vote the same way that still seems just as bad but now more people are not getting what they vote for
 
Not at all.

Let's say that you work in an office with 20 other people. Everyone in the office has to pool their money for lunch and everyone has to order from whatever place the group picks. There are 11 people in the Accounting department who vote as a bloc and always vote for anchovy sandwiches. The other 9 people don't like anchovy but, since the majority rules, their preferences are simply dismissed. Does that really sound fair?

Now, let's say that we change the office from a Direct Democracy to a Republic. It's decided that the office as a whole gets 5 votes to be allocated between the four departments. Accounting gets 2 votes because they have the most people. The other departments all get one vote because they each have 3 employees. Now you have a situation where the various departments have to come to some agreement with each other regarding where to go for lunch. That need to reach an agreement means that everyone in the office gets representation with every vote and that no single group can force a decision.

Greetings, Lutherf. :2wave:

Great analogy! :thumbs: I don't think I'd ever vote for anchovy sandwiches, no matter where I worked, so I'd sure prefer the Republic way of doing things - at least I'd have a variety of choices!
 
probably should not decide your lunch or department spending based on a buisnes wide vote

and if most of your employees are in a large deparmtent but the little ones hold control becase they vote the same way that still seems just as bad but now more people are not getting what they vote for

OK. So much for my office lunch analogy.

Let me put it this way, a Democratic form of government means that the majority can always outvote the minority. It's a great situation for the majority but tends to suck for the minority. That sucking aspect tends to breed discontent and foment stuff like Revolutionary wars. A Republican form of government, however, insures that everyone gets proportional representation. It doesn't stop the sucking aspect but it does make it a temporary problem instead of a permanent one. In fact, it's a lot like life in a free society. You can't win all the time but you've always at least got the opportunity to play the game.
 
Greetings, Lutherf. :2wave:

Great analogy! :thumbs: I don't think I'd ever vote for anchovy sandwiches, no matter where I worked, so I'd sure prefer the Republic way of doing things - at least I'd have a variety of choices!

Hi Pol!!

While I've never been a fan of anchovy there was a restaurant we ate at in Venice that specialized in anchovies. They will never be my snack of choice but some of the preparations the chef did at that restaurant made then a good, solid step above "tolerable".
 
OK. So much for my office lunch analogy.

Let me put it this way, a Democratic form of government means that the majority can always outvote the minority. It's a great situation for the majority but tends to suck for the minority. That sucking aspect tends to breed discontent and foment stuff like Revolutionary wars. A Republican form of government, however, insures that everyone gets proportional representation. It doesn't stop the sucking aspect but it does make it a temporary problem instead of a permanent one. In fact, it's a lot like life in a free society. You can't win all the time but you've always at least got the opportunity to play the game.

is this temporary rural areas seem to vote 1 way urban the other and the more people in the city's the less say they get
 
Greetings, Lutherf. :2wave:

Great analogy! :thumbs: I don't think I'd ever vote for anchovy sandwiches, no matter where I worked, so I'd sure prefer the Republic way of doing things - at least I'd have a variety of choices!

id prefer it if the minority did not control my country or my lunch
 
id prefer it if the minority did not control my country or my lunch

I think that to qualify as a voter one must take and pass the same test that persons take to become a citizen of the US. Then do away with the E.C.
 
it would seem givng every one a vote would do that

Would you have said that if Clinton had only won the electoral college and not the popular vote? There is a reason our founding fathers set up our democracy in this manner and it has worked forever and a day until one group suddenly didn't get the outcome they wanted and now they want to complain. Get over it - please and move on.
 
Would you have said that if Clinton had only won the electoral college and not the popular vote?
Lots of people including myself have been saying it long before this election.

There is a reason our founding fathers set up our democracy in this manner and it has worked forever
That is profoundly naive. They also set up our "republic" and its economy based on slavery. The real question is whether the premise and need for the electoral college is still valid today?
 
Lots of people including myself have been saying it long before this election.

That is profoundly naive. They also set up our "republic" and its economy based on slavery. The real question is whether the premise and need for the electoral college is still valid today?

Never mind that other countries were engaged in slavery around the world, eh? Playing the race card on the entire founding of the country is sure going to win your argument.

The real question, why cant the left quit crying about it and do something legitimately through the constitutional process for once?
 
I think that to qualify as a voter one must take and pass the same test that persons take to become a citizen of the US. Then do away with the E.C.

Some southern states used to have tests along those lines. They were made unconstitutional because they were intended to keep African Americans from voting.
 
Never mind that other countries were engaged in slavery around the world, eh?
How exactly is that relevant? How many of those "other countries around the world" were declaring human equality at their founding while practicing slavery?

Playing the race card on the entire founding of the country is sure going to win your argument.
No race card here just ignorant and irrelevant comments by you.

The real question, why cant the left quit crying about it and do something legitimately through the constitutional process for once?
WTF are you blabbering about?
 
Back
Top Bottom