• 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!

The minority majority

Lafayette

Lafayette

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
9,594
Reaction score
2,072
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From the Economist: America’s electoral system gives the Republicans advantages over Democrats - excerpt:
In all the world’s other 58 fully presidential democracies—those in which the president is both head of state and head of government—the winning candidate gets the most votes in the final, or only, round of voting. But due to the “electoral college” system that America’s founders jury-rigged in part to square the needs of democracy with the demography of slavery, this does not hold true for America. States vote in the college in proportion to their combined representation in both houses of Congress. This set-up means that a candidate who wins narrowly in many small and smallish states can beat one who gets more votes overall, but racks most of them up in big majorities in a few big states.
Click to expand...


The Electoral College falsifies any pretense of the US being a "Free Democracy". A democracy it is (perhaps), but deeply manipulated since 12th Amendment instituted the Electoral College (EC) with its imbalance of the presidential vote. Yes, the vote particularly for the presidency (one of three in the US triumvirate of "central powers") is distorted by the EC.


In all other evolved democracies on earth, the popular-vote is the singular arbiter of the winner. In the US, five times since the Constitution was promulgated, the loser of the popular-vote has "won" the presidency. This last time was highly significant. Hillary won the popular-vote by a margin of 2%, that is, she won the popular vote by a margin of 2.6 million votes - the highest historically. For perspective - that 2% margin is the combined population of Alaska, District of Columbia, Vermont and Wyoming.


Something has gone very wrong, and since a long, long time. It's time to end this unfair and thus undemocratic manner in which the presidential vote is decided. And this is apart from other voting inconsistencies, like gerrymandering and the aberrant employ of unlimited funding by a set of individuals (who exact a price for their money) that also must change.


Call it what you may, but what it is not is a fair and decent democracy ...


PS:
*And please spare me the nonsense about the US not being a democracy because it is a republic. They are intrinsically one in the same:
The key difference between a democracy and a republic lies in the limits placed on government by the law, which has implications for minority rights. Both forms of government tend to use a representational system — i.e., citizens vote to elect politicians to represent their interests and form the government.
Click to expand...


*It's the system that was wrong from the very beginning! First with an unfair Electoral College and then gerrymandering. And it's time to get it right, as suggested in the titled report from the Economist, or we remain the third-world democracy that we've become.
 
Last edited:
The Electoral College is our saving grace and it prevents simple mob rule. We were never set up as a pure democracy, and thank gawd for that.
 
HowardBThiname said:
The Electoral College is our saving grace and it prevents simple mob rule. We were never set up as a pure democracy, and thank gawd for that.
Click to expand...

What are we up to 60% of the Constitution could not get ratified by these moderns?

Something like that.

I forget.
 
The Electoral College falsifies any pretense of the US being a "Free Democracy".
Click to expand...

Of course it does because the Constitution of an anti-democratic document and the only time the Founders mentioned democracy was as a perjorative.
 
Lafayette said:
*And please spare me the nonsense about the US not being a democracy because it is a republic. They are intrinsically one in the same:
Click to expand...

Request Denied: I will not spare you because those words have specific meanings and are NOT the same.
 
HowardBThiname said:
The Electoral College is our saving grace and it prevents simple mob rule. We were never set up as a pure democracy, and thank gawd for that.
Click to expand...

Is minority rule better than majority rule?
 
Spartacus FPV said:
Request Denied: I will not spare you because those words have specific meanings and are NOT the same.
Click to expand...

Yes, indeed. On whatever planet you live, English must be very different from this one.

Besides, you WANT the differences. Because you cannot accept the fact that the US is one of the most "unfair democracies" on earth by far too many measures. (Income Inequality being the most pressing at the moment.)

(But, of course, it's a really great "republic" - whatever that word means in your addled mind ...)
 
Lafayette said:
Yes, indeed. On whatever planet you live, English must be very different from this one.

Besides, you WANT the differences. Because you cannot accept the fact that the US is one of the most "unfair democracies" on earth by far too many measures. (Income Inequality being the most pressing at the moment.)

(But, of course, it's a really great "republic" - whatever that word means in your addled mind ...)
Click to expand...

If a government system is anti-democratic, it is probably an unfair democracy by its nature.
 
In my civics classes These United States were most often and most accurately referred to as a Democratic Republic; after all we do vote for our representatives.
 
StuPedaso said:
In my civics classes These United States were most often and most accurately referred to as a Democratic Republic; after all we do vote for our representatives.
Click to expand...

That is not a term that used in the founding documents.
 
Tennyson said:
If a government system is anti-democratic, it is probably an unfair democracy by its nature.
Click to expand...

The nature of all democracies is determined, yes, by its voting-rules pertaining to elected representatives. Some are more "democratic" than others. Some are less. (Turkey is today a good present example of the latter.)

Ours have been warped since the get-go in the original Constitution. No big deal. We just alter the 12th Amendment to stipulate the means by which the vote is purely and simply the sum-total of all registered voters who voted.

(And given America's pathetic turnout-to-vote historically - see comparative voter turnout here - there should exist a penalty for not voting.)

NB: Within the group of Internet voting system users, four core countries have been using Internet voting over the course of several elections/referenda: Canada, Estonia, France and Switzerland. Estonia is the only country to offer Internet voting to the entire electorate.
 
Last edited:
the u.s. is a federal state, which WAS a classical republic of mixed government.

it has moved towards democracy with the 17th amendment

original federal government structure:

house elected by people who paid taxes and owed land

senate appointed by the state legislatures

president elected by the electors of the EC

clearly not a democratic form of government
 
Lafayette said:
The nature of all democracies is determined, yes, by its voting-rules pertaining to elected representatives. Some are more "democratic" than others. Some are less. (Turkey is today a good present example of the latter.)

Ours have been warped since the get-go in the original Constitution. No big deal. We just alter the 12th Amendment to stipulate the means by which the vote is purely and simply the sum-total of all registered voters who voted.

(And given America's pathetic turnout-to-vote historically - see comparative voter turnout here - there should exist a penalty for not voting.)

NB: Within the group of Internet voting system users, four core countries have been using Internet voting over the course of several elections/referenda: Canada, Estonia, France and Switzerland. Estonia is the only country to offer Internet voting to the entire electorate.
Click to expand...

Do you mean a ational popular for president?
 
Tennyson said:
Do you mean a ational popular for president?
Click to expand...

We have a national popular-vote. Hillary won it by a 2% advantage over her adversary.

But her adversary is PotUS.

That should never ever happen in a True Democracy where the popular-vote of the people decides definitively the election. In fact, the popular-vote does that in all other political elections - but since 1812 yet another manipulation of the in-state voting (called gerrymandering) has existed.

How can a country so proud of its Supposed Democracy put up with such deceitful manipulations of the popular-vote?

How can a country so proud of its democracy have the worst voter-turnout at the polls of any developed country?

Any answers ... ?
 
Lafayette said:
We have a national popular-vote. Hillary won it by a 2% advantage over her adversary.

But her adversary is PotUS.

That should never ever happen in a True Democracy where the popular-vote of the people decides definitively the election. In fact, the popular-vote does that in all other political elections - but since 1812 yet another manipulation of the in-state voting (called gerrymandering) has existed.

How can a country so proud of its Supposed Democracy put up with such deceitful manipulations of the popular-vote?

How can a country so proud of its democracy have the worst voter-turnout at the polls of any developed country?

Any answers ... ?
Click to expand...

There is no national popular vote for the president. A national popular vote would be unconstitutional.

The men who created this country were proud that they did not create a democracy.
 
Tennyson said:
There is no national popular vote for the president. A national popular vote would be unconstitutional. The men who created this country were proud that they did not create a democracy.
Click to expand...

Bollocks. Your understanding of the present "constitutionality" of the 12th Amendment is very wrong.

The men who created this country got the election-bit wrong in the 12th Amendment (passed in 1812) when Madison was PotUS. And why? Because the southern-states were adamant about blocking the northern states from abolishing slavery. Which, in the first half of the 19th century Europe was doing long before the US.

Now ask yourself, where was Madison from? Virginia! Did Virginia employ slaves to produce cotton? You betcha!

So, our political structure at the time (the turn of the 19th century) refused a democratically fair system of popular-vote preferring this voting mockery of the Electoral College that exists till this day - which needs fundamental changes.

Nothing in the 12th Amendment forbids Congress to pass a law dictating that the Electoral College must transmit the results ONLY of the popular-vote.

Which in all developed economies is the only means of determining the Head of government.

Uncle Sam needs some "development" to show fairness in electing the PotUS - and here is how it's done (from Wikipedia here):
Congressional district method
There are two versions of the congressional district method: one has been implemented in Maine and Nebraska; another has been proposed in Virginia. Under the implemented congressional district method, the electoral votes are distributed based on the popular vote winner within each of the states' congressional districts; the statewide popular vote winner receives two additional electoral votes.[81]

In 2013, a different version of the congressional district method was proposed in Virginia. This version would distribute Virginia's electoral votes based on the popular vote winner within each of Virginia's congressional districts; the two statewide electoral votes would be awarded based on which candidate won the most congressional districts, rather than on who won Virginia's statewide popular vote.

The congressional district method can more easily be implemented than other alternatives to the winner-takes-all method, in view of major party resistance to relatively enabling third parties under the proportional method ...
Click to expand...

Get it? The existing political-parties want to maintain their crushing control on the election of the PotUS. And True Democracy be damned!

Which is inexcusable in a free democracy where only the electoral voice of the people (aka the "popular-vote") should dominate.

Duhhhhhhhh ...
 
Last edited:
Lafayette said:
Bollocks. Your understanding of the present "constitutionality" of the 12th Amendment is very wrong.

The men who created this country got the election-bit wrong in the 12th Amendment (passed in 1812) when Madison was PotUS. And why? Because the southern-states were adamant about blocking the northern states from abolishing slavery. Which, in the first half of the 19th century Europe was doing long before the US.

Now ask yourself, where was Madison from? Virginia! Did Virginia employ slaves to produce cotton? You betcha!

So, our political structure at the time (the turn of the 19th century) refused a democratically fair system of popular-vote preferring this voting mockery of the Electoral College that exists till this day - which needs fundamental changes.

Nothing in the 12th Amendment forbids Congress to pass a law dictating that the Electoral College must transmit the results ONLY of the popular-vote.

Which in all developed economies is the only means of determining the Head of government.

Uncle Sam needs some "development" to show fairness in electing the PotUS - and here is how it's done (from Wikipedia here):


Get it? The existing political-parties want to maintain their crushing control on the election of the PotUS. And True Democracy be damned!

Which is inexcusable in a free democracy where only the electoral voice of the people (aka the "popular-vote") should dominate.

Duhhhhhhhh ...
Click to expand...

There is no historical evidence to substantiate your claims. The Twelth Amendment rectified a glitch in the 1796 1800 elections. Slavery had nothing to do with it.

There are at least four ways a national popular vote would violate the Constitution, especially under the National Fair Vote Compact.

A national popular vote will never happen.

You keep confusing the US as a democracy.
 
Tennyson said:
There is no national popular vote for the president. A national popular vote would be unconstitutional.

The men who created this country were proud that they did not create a democracy.
Click to expand...

Blah, blah, blah.

Moving right along ...
 
Tennyson said:
There is no historical evidence to substantiate your claims. The Twelth Amendment rectified a glitch in the 1796 1800 elections. Slavery had nothing to do with it.

There are at least four ways a national popular vote would violate the Constitution, especially under the National Fair Vote Compact. A national popular vote will never happen.
Click to expand...

Yet another who prefers to remain blind to the historical facts of his country's development. And how badly they need changing.

The US is the only developed country on earth that employs an Electoral College that manipulates the popular-vote. Particularly with its "winner-take-all" voting antic.

The winner of any fair democracy is ONLY DETERMINED BY THE SIMPLE POPULAR-VOTE. The Electoral College was a palliative imagined at a time when most of "America" did not even have decent roads over which presidential voting could be reported to Washington, DC.

You seem like many, many other Americans who have obviously never ever had any real instruction in Civics. And by that I mean within an historical context.

It's terrifying and this recent election shows amply the disastrous results that ensue when election trickery by an "Electoral College" produces accidently a mentally incompetent PotUS* ...

*Abundant commentary by psychologists has been stimulated by Trump's antics since assuming the presidency. Just google: Trump unfit to govern?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom