Well, #1, we're not a democracy - we're a representative republic. What that means is that we don't do the "majority rules" thing hard and fast; all Americans are (supposed to be) represented in our government.
What, in my opinion, is a threat to that representation is the "winner take all" manner in which electoral votes are awarded, and states shouldn't be allowed to do that. (Yes, I am saying that there should be a federal law forcing states to acknowledge their minority population and allow their vote to be counted.)
All this babble about how it's "unfair" that Montana has the same number of Senators as California, even though they have a fraction of the population - that is a failure in our education system, and a failure on the part of our media that so many Americans don't understand the purpose of Senators vs. Representatives. Senators represent the states as a whole; Representatives represent the people in that state. It's really very simple, and brilliant of our Founders to come up with it. United States.
What's unfair is wanting to have two or three states call the shots for the whole 50 Nifty. It's also unfair that a large urban area calls the shots for a whole state, with those in the larger rural areas having no say.
We scowl at an AOC or a Maxine Waters or an Eric Swallwell, but they are an important part of our republic as they represent the people of their district. Yes, even drug gangs and Socialists get a say in their government, and that is how it's supposed to work. How it's NOT supposed to work is having large highly populated states ruling over the smaller less populated ones.
So is the electoral college a "threat to democracy"? Yes. It's supposed to be; it was designed to be a threat to democracy. But is it a true mechanism for our representative republic? No, it's not.
What, in my opinion, is a threat to that representation is the "winner take all" manner in which electoral votes are awarded, and states shouldn't be allowed to do that. (Yes, I am saying that there should be a federal law forcing states to acknowledge their minority population and allow their vote to be counted.)
All this babble about how it's "unfair" that Montana has the same number of Senators as California, even though they have a fraction of the population - that is a failure in our education system, and a failure on the part of our media that so many Americans don't understand the purpose of Senators vs. Representatives. Senators represent the states as a whole; Representatives represent the people in that state. It's really very simple, and brilliant of our Founders to come up with it. United States.
What's unfair is wanting to have two or three states call the shots for the whole 50 Nifty. It's also unfair that a large urban area calls the shots for a whole state, with those in the larger rural areas having no say.
We scowl at an AOC or a Maxine Waters or an Eric Swallwell, but they are an important part of our republic as they represent the people of their district. Yes, even drug gangs and Socialists get a say in their government, and that is how it's supposed to work. How it's NOT supposed to work is having large highly populated states ruling over the smaller less populated ones.
So is the electoral college a "threat to democracy"? Yes. It's supposed to be; it was designed to be a threat to democracy. But is it a true mechanism for our representative republic? No, it's not.
