4 ms·

The United States is a representative republic, not a democracy. Yes, I am aware of the nuances of each. The Constitution clearly outlines how voting should pro

The United States is a representative republic, not a democracy. Yes, I am aware of the nuances of each. The Constitution clearly outlines how voting should proceed, the Electoral College, etc. It would take Constitutional amendments to change this system, the same as any other part of the Constitution. There is no "popular vote" for the President, legally speaking. The popular vote is essentially a colloquial totaling of 51 separate vote-totaling processes.

wyclif 6y ago
Yes, and I say something that sounds very similar to this every time a colleague says "but, but, but what about the popular vote?" What non-USAians need to understand is that what you call "the popular vote" simply does not matter with regard to how votes are tallied or counted. In the US votes are counted by state and that is one reason why we have an Electoral College. It is the way our system is set up to work, and the founders already hammered this out hundreds of years ago in the days of the early republic.
IIAOPSW 6y ago
Calling it a "Republic" doesn't justify minority rule, it just gives a different name to it. Tell me why the US should be a Repbulic instead of a Democracy.
- finder83 6y ago
  There are complexities and nuances in our country that aren't well represented by the majority. Such as the food, farming, and ranching industries. Such as rural or sub-rural areas, forestry management, national parks, mining, etc. Entire industries exist that are better served by local politics than national politics, and for which a popular vote would under-represent. That's why the system was designed with an electoral college. So that rural farmers could be represented as equally and strongly as city business people. Should they be? Probably, if we want to eat. Even in the current system, the election is largely chosen by people living in large cities that are completely disconnected from the rest of the 95% of the country. There is almost a city limits split between red and blue. Maintaining balance in the complex system is more important than making each voice heard.
  - crakhamster01 6y ago
    > That's why the system was designed with an electoral college. So that rural farmers could be represented as equally and strongly as city business people. This isn't all that accurate. One of the main reasons why the framers came up with the electoral college was due to the fact that, 200+ years ago, information exchange was extremely low. The US was already fairly large at that point, and the concern was that 18th-century voters in rural areas would lack the resources to have an informed vote about national candidates. There was concern about equal representation, but reducing that down to just "farmers" is a little disingenuous. The reason why Southern states agreed to a voting system that granted electors based off of population was because they were able to work in the Three-Fifths compromise. States like Virginia, where enslaved people counted 60% of the population, greatly benefited from this, and at one point enabled Virginia to count for 25% of the national electorate. These decisions might have been reasonable 200+ years ago, but neither of these are the case anymore, and are not good reasons to cling on to a system that was largely born out of necessity. Also, one point that's usually glossed over is that when people gripe about the electoral college, it's usually referring to the fact that the candidate with the majority of votes in a state takes all of their electors (e.g. winner takes all). However, the framers never defined how states should conduct their own elections. This system of allocating votes only began catching on around 40 years after they ratified the Constitution, where individual states gradually decided to implement this system. There's nothing in the Constitution about it, and even James Madison famously wrote a letter in 1827 complaining about how adopting this system could undermine our entire Democratic process.
    - finder83 6y ago
      Though I think that the history is also likely more complex than that, regardless of the history, that still doesn't change my point. The electoral college process still serves us better than a simple majority would. I agree there are possibly better ways, possibly force choice ranking, etc. But all a simple majority vote would do would be to ensure we would become a one-party system, the opposite direction we should be headed (a multiple-party system). Having it be controlled by the states is a great testing bed for that, for example, in Maine. There's no reason to take that power away from states and make it federal. IANAL, but my interpretation is that the part that is in the constitution is that it is up to the individual states to decide how to run their elections and assign electoral votes.
- macinjosh 6y ago
  Calling it a democracy doesn't justify majority rule either, it just gives a different name to the oppression of the minority. Democracy is the worst system, except for all the rest so far. I would go so far as to argue the closer a democracy becomes to being evenly divided the more it has the problems of the other less egalitarian systems of government.

wyclif 6y ago

Yes, and I say something that sounds very similar to this every time a colleague says "but, but, but what about the popular vote?" What non-USAians need to understand is that what you call "the popular vote" simply does not matter with regard to how votes are tallied or counted. In the US votes are counted by state and that is one reason why we have an Electoral College. It is the way our system is set up to work, and the founders already hammered this out hundreds of years ago in the days of the early republic.

IIAOPSW 6y ago

Calling it a "Republic" doesn't justify minority rule, it just gives a different name to it. Tell me why the US should be a Repbulic instead of a Democracy.

finder83 6y ago
There are complexities and nuances in our country that aren't well represented by the majority. Such as the food, farming, and ranching industries. Such as rural or sub-rural areas, forestry management, national parks, mining, etc. Entire industries exist that are better served by local politics than national politics, and for which a popular vote would under-represent. That's why the system was designed with an electoral college. So that rural farmers could be represented as equally and strongly as city business people. Should they be? Probably, if we want to eat. Even in the current system, the election is largely chosen by people living in large cities that are completely disconnected from the rest of the 95% of the country. There is almost a city limits split between red and blue. Maintaining balance in the complex system is more important than making each voice heard.
- crakhamster01 6y ago
  > That's why the system was designed with an electoral college. So that rural farmers could be represented as equally and strongly as city business people. This isn't all that accurate. One of the main reasons why the framers came up with the electoral college was due to the fact that, 200+ years ago, information exchange was extremely low. The US was already fairly large at that point, and the concern was that 18th-century voters in rural areas would lack the resources to have an informed vote about national candidates. There was concern about equal representation, but reducing that down to just "farmers" is a little disingenuous. The reason why Southern states agreed to a voting system that granted electors based off of population was because they were able to work in the Three-Fifths compromise. States like Virginia, where enslaved people counted 60% of the population, greatly benefited from this, and at one point enabled Virginia to count for 25% of the national electorate. These decisions might have been reasonable 200+ years ago, but neither of these are the case anymore, and are not good reasons to cling on to a system that was largely born out of necessity. Also, one point that's usually glossed over is that when people gripe about the electoral college, it's usually referring to the fact that the candidate with the majority of votes in a state takes all of their electors (e.g. winner takes all). However, the framers never defined how states should conduct their own elections. This system of allocating votes only began catching on around 40 years after they ratified the Constitution, where individual states gradually decided to implement this system. There's nothing in the Constitution about it, and even James Madison famously wrote a letter in 1827 complaining about how adopting this system could undermine our entire Democratic process.
  - finder83 6y ago
    Though I think that the history is also likely more complex than that, regardless of the history, that still doesn't change my point. The electoral college process still serves us better than a simple majority would. I agree there are possibly better ways, possibly force choice ranking, etc. But all a simple majority vote would do would be to ensure we would become a one-party system, the opposite direction we should be headed (a multiple-party system). Having it be controlled by the states is a great testing bed for that, for example, in Maine. There's no reason to take that power away from states and make it federal. IANAL, but my interpretation is that the part that is in the constitution is that it is up to the individual states to decide how to run their elections and assign electoral votes.
macinjosh 6y ago
Calling it a democracy doesn't justify majority rule either, it just gives a different name to the oppression of the minority. Democracy is the worst system, except for all the rest so far. I would go so far as to argue the closer a democracy becomes to being evenly divided the more it has the problems of the other less egalitarian systems of government.