Hillary Wants To Abolish The Electoral College. Is There An In-Between Solution?

[This_person]

Gurps, great findof a video.

Phil, I think you rename us a democratic-republic if you really havesome driving need to rename us. However, Article 4 Section 4 states, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..." I don't understand the need to rename it.

 

[philibusters]

Gurps, great findof a video.

Phil, I think you rename us a democratic-republic if you really havesome driving need to rename us. However, Article 4 Section 4 states, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..." I don't understand the need to rename it.

Not sure what you are referring to. I didn't say anything about renaming anything.

 

[This_person]

Not sure what you are referring to. I didn't say anything about renaming anything.

Why not just say we're a Republic instead of a representative democracy? We are, after all, a republic.

 

[philibusters]

Why not just say we're a Republic instead of a representative democracy? We are, after all, a republic.

Because they are NOT mutually exclusive. You can be both. The USSR was a Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, that consisted of 14 "equal"" sovereign states, Moldova, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Russia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Ukraine. Just like the U.S. is a republic because its a union consisting of 50 equal sovereign states. A republic, as the term was used by the founding father, just means the gov't consist of equal soverign members. Under the definition of Republic, it could be run by a dictatorship or democracy, as long as each entity making up the republic (in this country the states) maintained their sovereignty.

If you look at the wikipedia entry for Republic it mentions a couple interesting things. First 159 out of 206 countries include the word Republic in their name. For example, China is the People's Republic of China. Second the wiki entry on Republic notes that in American English (not necessarily British english or other englishes), the definition of Republic has drifted and is now synonmous with a "representative democracy". Specifically the wiki entry states "In American English, the definition of a republic can also refer specifically to a government in which elected individuals represent the citizen body, known elsewhere as a representative democracy (a democratic republic),[4] and exercise power according to the rule of law (a constitutional republic)."

When I was in school I learned that the U.S. was a representative democracy because we elected officials to represent us. From other sources I understood the U.S. was a also a Republic. I never thought there was a conflict between the two are that they were mutually exclusive of each other (in fact before this thread I don't I had ever worried about whether there was a conflict. I never denied the U.S. was a Republic. I said we were a representative democracy and you said "no, we are republic" So its a strawman argument to ask me "Why not just say we're a Republic instead of a representative democracy? We are, after all, a republic". I would have admitted that from the get go. I have not been debating with you whether we are a Republic. I have been debating with you whether we are a representative democracy.

 

[Gilligan]

And..after all is said and done...we'll keep the EC to prevent a takeover by the libprogs. ;-)

 

[This_person]

Because they are NOT mutually exclusive. You can be both. The USSR was a Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, that consisted of 14 "equal"" sovereign states, Moldova, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Russia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Ukraine. Just like the U.S. is a republic because its a union consisting of 50 equal sovereign states. A republic, as the term was used by the founding father, just means the gov't consist of equal soverign members. Under the definition of Republic, it could be run by a dictatorship or democracy, as long as each entity making up the republic (in this country the states) maintained their sovereignty.

If you look at the wikipedia entry for Republic it mentions a couple interesting things. First 159 out of 206 countries include the word Republic in their name. For example, China is the People's Republic of China. Second the wiki entry on Republic notes that in American English (not necessarily British english or other englishes), the definition of Republic has drifted and is now synonmous with a "representative democracy". Specifically the wiki entry states "In American English, the definition of a republic can also refer specifically to a government in which elected individuals represent the citizen body, known elsewhere as a representative democracy (a democratic republic),[4] and exercise power according to the rule of law (a constitutional republic)."

When I was in school I learned that the U.S. was a representative democracy because we elected officials to represent us. From other sources I understood the U.S. was a also a Republic. I never thought there was a conflict between the two are that they were mutually exclusive of each other (in fact before this thread I don't I had ever worried about whether there was a conflict. I never denied the U.S. was a Republic. I said we were a representative democracy and you said "no, we are republic" So its a strawman argument to ask me "Why not just say we're a Republic instead of a representative democracy? We are, after all, a republic". I would have admitted that from the get go. I have not been debating with you whether we are a Republic. I have been debating with you whether we are a representative democracy.

Ok, fair enough. Except we're not a democracy.

 

[oldgulph]

Maryland has enacted the National Popular Vote bill

Trump, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes”
“ I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.”

In 2012, the night Romney lost, Trump tweeted.
"The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."

In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin.

Recent and past presidential candidates who supported direct election of the President in the form of a constitutional amendment, before the National Popular Vote bill was introduced: George H.W. Bush (R-TX-1969), Bob Dole (R-KS-1969), Gerald Ford (R-MI-1969), Richard Nixon (R-CA-1969), Michael Dukakis (D-MA), Jimmy Carter (D-GA-1977), and Hillary Clinton (D-NY-2001).

Recent and past presidential candidates with a public record of support, before November 2016, for the National Popular Vote bill that would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes: Bob Barr (Libertarian- GA), U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN), Senator and Vice President Al Gore (D-TN), Ralph Nader, Governor Martin O’Malley (D-MD), Jill Stein (Green), Senator Birch Bayh (D-IN), Senator and Governor Lincoln Chafee (R-I-D, -RI), Governor and former Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean (D–VT), Congressmen John Anderson (R, I –ILL).

Newt Gingrich summarized his support for the National Popular Vote bill by saying: “No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. … America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles.”

In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until this election, 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 (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote for President has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

The National Popular Vote bill is 61% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

The bill in 2017 has passed in the New Mexico Senate and Oregon House.
It was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
Since 2006, the bill has passed 35 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), The District of Columbia, Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), North Carolina (15), Oklahoma (7), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California, Colorado (9), Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico (5), New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

 

[philibusters]

Ok, fair enough. Except we're not a democracy.

I think we are a representative democracy. We elect officials (congressman and senators) who represent a certain group of people. We also elect a President who represents all citizens. Yeah there are some non-democratic elements of our political system like the fact that most judges and some other public officials are appointed (but appointed by elected officials). If the core element of a representative democracy is that power is held by the people through the election of public officials who represent them---then what is your argument that we are not a representative democracy?

 

[Ken King]

I think we are a representative democracy. We elect officials (congressman and senators) who represent a certain group of people. We also elect a President who represents all citizens. Yeah there are some non-democratic elements of our political system like the fact that most judges and some other public officials are appointed (but appointed by elected officials). If the core element of a representative democracy is that power is held by the people through the election of public officials who represent them---then what is your argument that we are not a representative democracy?

The argument, as I see it, is that a democracy does not impose limits on what can or cannot be done, the will of the majority rules. A republic, on the other hand, binds itself to a constitution which puts restraints on what laws can be made. Our republic, via the Constitution and beyond the elected representation process, establishes a system of checks and balances that a democracy (direct or indirect) would, or might, not exhibit.

 

[philibusters]

The argument, as I see it, is that a democracy does not impose limits on what can or cannot be done, the will of the majority rules. A republic, on the other hand, binds itself to a constitution which puts restraints on what laws can be made. Our republic, via the Constitution and beyond the elected representation process, establishes a system of checks and balances that a democracy (direct or indirect) would, or might, not exhibit.

I mean to some extent these arguments can never be settled because you are debating terminology. Why are we assuming republics necessarily place constitutional limits. Why can't democracies have constitutional limits.

The definition of republic as it was used at the time of the founders was that it consisted of a union between equal sovereigns (the 13 states). There was no requirement of a constitution. Since the time of the founding generation the meaning of republic has drifted in American English and now has a more narrow meaning.

The Constitution has the foundation of a gov't is a relatively new concept. You can see hints of it in history, but really its didn't become fundamental to any important gov't until around 400 or 500 years. We live in the era of constitutions, but there were democracies and republics before constitutional era. You can point to examples of unfettered democracies in antiquity, but there is no reason that democracies cannot be modified by constitutions any less than republics.

When I was in HS and college the textbooks I had said the U.S. is a representative democracy. Again we are talking about terminology--and over time words shift meanings. One generation's preferred terminology can be disfavored by the next and so on. But in the field of political science as the terminology is currently used, I believe it is correct to say the U.S. is a representative democracy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...public-or-a-democracy/?utm_term=.0ad483160055

 

[This_person]

I think we are a representative democracy.

You can think that, but we're not a democracy.

What is your argument that we are not a representative democracy?

That we are a republic. There are many other forms of words that can fill out what you're trying to say, but we are a republic. We do not elect our representatives through popular election (president), we did not elect the Senate (and we should go back to that), and our judges are not elected. We are, federally, a republic.

 

[Ken King]

You can think that, but we're not a democracy.



That we are a republic. There are many other forms of words that can fill out what you're trying to say, but we are a republic. We do not elect our representatives through popular election (president), we did not elect the Senate (and we should go back to that), and our judges are not elected. We are, federally, a republic.

:fixed:

 

[This_person]

:fixed:

Thank you

 

[philibusters]

You can think that, but we're not a democracy.



That we are a republic. There are many other forms of words that can fill out what you're trying to say, but we are a republic. We do not elect our representatives through popular election (president), we did not elect the Senate (and we should go back to that), and our judges are not elected. We are, federally, a republic.

But they are not exclusive of each other. The Soviet Union was a republic. Did we have the same government as them?

The reality is we do elect the President albeit indirectly through the electoral college and even when the Senate was not elected directly, people were indirectly electing them through the races in the state legislature.

You can talk about a pure democracy (small state, direct democracy), but that is not what are widely considered Democracies look like in today's world. They look like us.

But again, my point from the start has been you can be both a Republic and Representative Democracy at the same time.

 

[This_person]

The reality is we do elect the President albeit indirectly through the electoral college and even when the Senate was not elected directly, people were indirectly electing them through the races in the state legislature.

When it is not a free electoral system, but rather the "popular" vote is not even a legal requirement to happen, what is that called?

 

[awpitt]

Hillary Wants To Abolish The Electoral College. Is There An In-Between Solution?

Yes. An easy solution. Every state should follow the model of Maine and Nebraska. Award Electoral vote by congressional district with the two extra votes awarded based to the statewide vote total. Very simple and would more accurately reflect the will of the American people than the current system.

 

[vraiblonde]

Yes. An easy solution. Every state should follow the model of Maine and Nebraska. Award Electoral vote by congressional district with the two extra votes awarded based to the statewide vote total. Very simple and would more accurately reflect the will of the American people than the current system.

You understand, of course, that that means there would never be another Democrat president ever again.

 

[awpitt]

You understand, of course, that that means there would never be another Democrat president ever again.

Not sure where you draw that conclusion from. I would be interested in hearing your rational on that. Even if it were true, I'd be fine with it. I just feel that if all states followed ME's and NE's model, we'd all be better off.

 

[GURPS]

Not sure where you draw that conclusion from. I would be interested in hearing your rational on that. Even if it were true, I'd be fine with it. I just feel that if all states followed ME's and NE's model, we'd all be better off.

county by county break down ..... most are RED

 

[awpitt]

county by county break down ..... most are RED

Auh..... Congressional districts aren't county by county. There's a difference.