5 ms·

If people are this paranoid now, while this country is a democratic republic, then just imagine how bad it will get when they have it their way and all of the U

If people are this paranoid now, while this country is a democratic republic, then just imagine how bad it will get when they have it their way and all of the U.S becomes a Democracy. . . http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/ http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/ there is a reasons as to why our founding fathers made this country a Democratic Republic rather than a Democracy. . .

colechristensen 10y ago
Not quite what those words mean – a president elected with a national popular vote would still very much be a democratic republic. The "democratic" adjective adds weight to how representative government will be elected amongst the population, "democratic republic" doesn't imply something like a electoral college. And nobody is really advocating for a direct Athenian-style democracy in the US (I'm sure _someone_ is but that's not this) and removing the electoral college would make us quite a bit more like the rest of the free world.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- slicktux 10y ago
  Okay, what then is the purpose, or benefits, of our vote counting for president elections and when does it stop being a democratic republic and instead a democracy?
  - colechristensen 10y ago
    The benefits of a national popular election for president are getting rid of the silly game built up around winning the electoral college. People say that the electoral college means less populated states get a say ... but (for example) Trump came to my state of 5.5 million exactly once for a public event and didn't even leave the airport. A national popular vote would mean that Florida and Ohio don't get a disproportional advantage and also that winning the presidency doesn't require you to be good at playing the electoral college or district drawing game. It means that every vote counts a little bit more and that wherever a candidate goes they can make a difference for their final vote count. I'm not really sure that if (literally) Hitler won the electoral college vote that the electors would go against their district's election so we're left with deciding which game is better to play – the popular vote game or the electoral college game. I think the electoral vote game could reduce the divisiveness of elections and lead candidates to really find and fight for the middle of the political spectrum. Maybe some game theorists have real science behind the effects of the different strategies. It stops being a republic when most of the ruling decisions are put directly to the populace. Go to war with Canada? National popular vote. Legalize catnip? National popular vote. National budget? National Popular vote. Ratify a treaty? National popular vote. Vim or Emacs? Vim. Places like California with their multitude of referendums approach this but are still very far away from removing the republic moniker.
    - slicktux 10y ago
      Well, we are on a realm of speculation and subjectivity; but I beg to differ; the majority of people (at least the ones that I talk to) do not even acknowledge that their vote does not count and instead believe that it is a democracy; that is why people go out to vote. I really have nothing other to say than this: I think it would be better if people were educated about our constitutional system; and it would send a stronger message if NO ONE voted for president; then they can worry about the change they want all within their states! This whole, vote for this president because he/she is the lesser evil is what is destroying this country. . . “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages & countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. The disorders & miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security & repose in the absolute power of an Individual: and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.” (Washington 1976)
      - colechristensen 10y ago
        Personally I think we should ditch BOTH the electoral college and fist-past-the-post elections. If there are several candidates from each party (including independent and third party candidates) and voting is done using one of the many ranking systems that allows you to do more than vote against a candidate, we could be in a much better situation.
        slicktux 10y ago
        Yes, and it all makes sense in this state of current affairs, but unfortunately (in my opinion) it is not that easy; by sticking to that mindset we once again get into the problems we have today; say we do it as you propose, and we have a great president running for office and he has all these proposals like free college, environmental energy subsidies, and whatever else you may think of; even though I agree with them, it would still be pointless for me to vote for him because I'm a constitutionalist (libertarian) and all those programs would be unconstitutional, just like the NSA spying; hence for consistency (thanks to the constitution) I disagree with everything you are saying, but I agree if I step into the paradox we call our state of current affairs; My views may make me sound like a fundamentalist, and in essence I am, but think about it; It should not matter who the president is and neither should our vote for president. You seem to understand how our different branches of government work hence you should know that the states are where the real, genuine, constitutional changes should take place; not within the Federal Branch (do not confuse powers with rights); it is all about checks and balances; you cannot have a federal government that taxes for social programs and then disagree when it taxes for programs that kill innocents, spy on the people, or bail out corporations. . .hence consistency and the argument that voting for president should not matter; because you must keep in mind that social norms influence individual behaviors and perceptions. . .and the democratic norm only forms what George Washington warned us about in the previous quote I referenced. . . this is not only pragmatism, it is mindsets.
- slicktux 10y ago
  Also, I do know that "a president elected with a national popular vote would still very much be a democratic republic" because that is how our system is set up, at it's core; but then it becomes paradoxical because the national popular vote got the president elected, therefore, the mentality (of the ignorant) would also be that this country is a democracy. My point is, people should acknowledge that our popular vote has never gotten a president elected and for a good reason; we do not need a demagogue in the Federal Branch appealing to the emotions of people, separating the masses, and creating a them and us mentality; we have state rights for that reasong (10th amendment) and we have article 1 Section 8 for limiting the federal government. Hence, when I say limit the federal government most have this negative stereotype that I do not believe in progressive change when in fact I do; I just do not ask for it from the president, I ask for it within my state; like In California. . .

colechristensen 10y ago

Not quite what those words mean – a president elected with a national popular vote would still very much be a democratic republic. The "democratic" adjective adds weight to how representative government will be elected amongst the population, "democratic republic" doesn't imply something like a electoral college. And nobody is really advocating for a direct Athenian-style democracy in the US (I'm sure _someone_ is but that's not this) and removing the electoral college would make us quite a bit more like the rest of the free world.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
slicktux 10y ago
Okay, what then is the purpose, or benefits, of our vote counting for president elections and when does it stop being a democratic republic and instead a democracy?
- colechristensen 10y ago
  The benefits of a national popular election for president are getting rid of the silly game built up around winning the electoral college. People say that the electoral college means less populated states get a say ... but (for example) Trump came to my state of 5.5 million exactly once for a public event and didn't even leave the airport. A national popular vote would mean that Florida and Ohio don't get a disproportional advantage and also that winning the presidency doesn't require you to be good at playing the electoral college or district drawing game. It means that every vote counts a little bit more and that wherever a candidate goes they can make a difference for their final vote count. I'm not really sure that if (literally) Hitler won the electoral college vote that the electors would go against their district's election so we're left with deciding which game is better to play – the popular vote game or the electoral college game. I think the electoral vote game could reduce the divisiveness of elections and lead candidates to really find and fight for the middle of the political spectrum. Maybe some game theorists have real science behind the effects of the different strategies. It stops being a republic when most of the ruling decisions are put directly to the populace. Go to war with Canada? National popular vote. Legalize catnip? National popular vote. National budget? National Popular vote. Ratify a treaty? National popular vote. Vim or Emacs? Vim. Places like California with their multitude of referendums approach this but are still very far away from removing the republic moniker.
  - slicktux 10y ago
    Well, we are on a realm of speculation and subjectivity; but I beg to differ; the majority of people (at least the ones that I talk to) do not even acknowledge that their vote does not count and instead believe that it is a democracy; that is why people go out to vote. I really have nothing other to say than this: I think it would be better if people were educated about our constitutional system; and it would send a stronger message if NO ONE voted for president; then they can worry about the change they want all within their states! This whole, vote for this president because he/she is the lesser evil is what is destroying this country. . . “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages & countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. The disorders & miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security & repose in the absolute power of an Individual: and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.” (Washington 1976)
    - colechristensen 10y ago
      Personally I think we should ditch BOTH the electoral college and fist-past-the-post elections. If there are several candidates from each party (including independent and third party candidates) and voting is done using one of the many ranking systems that allows you to do more than vote against a candidate, we could be in a much better situation.
      - slicktux 10y ago
        Yes, and it all makes sense in this state of current affairs, but unfortunately (in my opinion) it is not that easy; by sticking to that mindset we once again get into the problems we have today; say we do it as you propose, and we have a great president running for office and he has all these proposals like free college, environmental energy subsidies, and whatever else you may think of; even though I agree with them, it would still be pointless for me to vote for him because I'm a constitutionalist (libertarian) and all those programs would be unconstitutional, just like the NSA spying; hence for consistency (thanks to the constitution) I disagree with everything you are saying, but I agree if I step into the paradox we call our state of current affairs; My views may make me sound like a fundamentalist, and in essence I am, but think about it; It should not matter who the president is and neither should our vote for president. You seem to understand how our different branches of government work hence you should know that the states are where the real, genuine, constitutional changes should take place; not within the Federal Branch (do not confuse powers with rights); it is all about checks and balances; you cannot have a federal government that taxes for social programs and then disagree when it taxes for programs that kill innocents, spy on the people, or bail out corporations. . .hence consistency and the argument that voting for president should not matter; because you must keep in mind that social norms influence individual behaviors and perceptions. . .and the democratic norm only forms what George Washington warned us about in the previous quote I referenced. . . this is not only pragmatism, it is mindsets.
slicktux 10y ago
Also, I do know that "a president elected with a national popular vote would still very much be a democratic republic" because that is how our system is set up, at it's core; but then it becomes paradoxical because the national popular vote got the president elected, therefore, the mentality (of the ignorant) would also be that this country is a democracy. My point is, people should acknowledge that our popular vote has never gotten a president elected and for a good reason; we do not need a demagogue in the Federal Branch appealing to the emotions of people, separating the masses, and creating a them and us mentality; we have state rights for that reasong (10th amendment) and we have article 1 Section 8 for limiting the federal government. Hence, when I say limit the federal government most have this negative stereotype that I do not believe in progressive change when in fact I do; I just do not ask for it from the president, I ask for it within my state; like In California. . .