We do not elect our President we elect electors.
An article for you - http://lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html
Hillary Wants To Abolish The Electoral College. Is There An In-Between Solution?
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
We do not elect our President we elect electors.
An article for you - http://lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html
philibusters
Active Member
You are correct in that point (a point I made myself in response to another post earlier), but you missed my main point.
then why was Obama Selected TWICE ? Hillary was Obama 2.0 she should have been a shoe in
This_person
Well-Known Member
The federal government is a representation of all 50 states. The EC balances population and state.
It does not imply one vote is "inherently superior" to another. It is a way of recognizing one state is not inherently superior to another.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Which is why I offered the governors voting as a solution.
This_person
Well-Known Member
I appreciate your opinion, but the Constitution guarantees to the states a Republican form of government.
philibusters
Active Member
I think you missed my point that those terms are not mutually exclusive. You can be a republic and representative democracy at the same time.
philibusters
Active Member
The Constitution lays out the amendment process and any changes in the electoral college would have to go through the formal amendment process.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Absolutely. And, the only way it could happen (for the reasons you stated) would be a convention of states - a method for modifying the constitution which was never used to date.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Dictionary.com said:
So, clearly we are a republic
Dictionary.com said:
So, we are clearly not a democracy of any kind.
philibusters
Active Member
So, clearly we are a republic
So, we are clearly not a democracy of any kind.
The first definition of republic is practically the same as the definition you gave for democracy. Why those definitions would support your argument is not clear at all. In fact they support my argument.
A quick comparison of the two definitions you gave:
Republic: 1) A state 2) in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens 3) and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them
Democracy: 1) A government 2)in which the supreme power is vested in the people 3) and exercised directly by them (that would be a direct democracy) or by their elected agents under a free electoral system (that is a representative democracy and essentially the same definition as what you gave for a Republic.
Last edited:
This_person
Well-Known Member
philibusters
Active Member
We don't have a free electoral system.
Sure we do! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_systemhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system An electoral system is just a system where the people elect their public officials.
I feel like you are fighting tooth and nail against the obvious. The U.S. is a representative democracy. We elect representatives who then vote on measures. You are way overthinking things here.
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
No we elect people who tell us they will represent us.
Then they go to Congress and start sucking up to all the old timers there.
The ones who have been sucking the Government teat for 20 orn 30 years.
Then they spin/spit on us.
itsbob
I bowl overhand
We all need to stop saying Hillary won the popular vote.. she didn't.
You can't win something that isn't contested. She Lost, Period.
A baseball teams says.. we WON we got more hits!! Well, the number of hits in baseball don't count, runs do so no, you didn't win.
She can say she got more votes, but she can't really say she won anything.
This_person
Well-Known Member
philibusters
Active Member
I googled the question, what is the difference between a Republic and a Representative Democracy.
I found this answer informative... " This is a problem of definitions. The archaic definition of a republic, which is what was in use at the time of the founding of the United States, is a group in which there is equality among its members - the States are equals among the group that comprises the Federal government.
The modern definition of republic, however, is pretty much identical to a "representative democracy" - "a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch."
So, depending on what definition you are using, they are either very different or practically identical."
So the usage of the term "Republic" has changed over time. When the founders talked about a republic they were referring to a government made up of 13 equal states (now 50 states). Now republic is used more in terms of the link you provided earlier, which I pointed out was practically the same definition as "representative democracy". Before getting into this debate I never worried about the issue as I didn't think the terms were mutually exclusive (and I still don't). You can be a republic made up of 50 equal states and be a representative democracy in that the ultimate power is held by the people who exercise it by electing representatives. Its the same way a country can be both a republic and a capitalistic or the same way a dictator can be both a totalitarian (if he exercises extreme centralized control of most public functions) or non-totalitarian if a country has a dictator but effective power is diffused and held by regional leaders.
I found this answer informative... " This is a problem of definitions. The archaic definition of a republic, which is what was in use at the time of the founding of the United States, is a group in which there is equality among its members - the States are equals among the group that comprises the Federal government.
The modern definition of republic, however, is pretty much identical to a "representative democracy" - "a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch."
So, depending on what definition you are using, they are either very different or practically identical."
So the usage of the term "Republic" has changed over time. When the founders talked about a republic they were referring to a government made up of 13 equal states (now 50 states). Now republic is used more in terms of the link you provided earlier, which I pointed out was practically the same definition as "representative democracy". Before getting into this debate I never worried about the issue as I didn't think the terms were mutually exclusive (and I still don't). You can be a republic made up of 50 equal states and be a representative democracy in that the ultimate power is held by the people who exercise it by electing representatives. Its the same way a country can be both a republic and a capitalistic or the same way a dictator can be both a totalitarian (if he exercises extreme centralized control of most public functions) or non-totalitarian if a country has a dictator but effective power is diffused and held by regional leaders.
There it is..the only one that matters. Unless you are one of those "Constitution should be a living document" liberal types...