4 ms·

That doesn’t magically make it a democratic election. In fact, the way you describe it working is a relatively new way of doing things and varies from state to

That doesn’t magically make it a democratic election. In fact, the way you describe it working is a relatively new way of doing things and varies from state to state. It is not uniform. Also, if you paid any attention at all in the last election, you’d realize how tenuous it all really is and in multiple elections, the actual person voted in wasn’t even the winner by popular vote. So by definition, it can not be democratic.

cycomanic 4y ago
> That doesn’t magically make it a democratic election. In fact, the way you describe it working is a relatively new way of doing things and varies from state to state. It is not uniform. Also, if you paid any attention at all in the last election, you’d realize how tenuous it all really is and in multiple elections, the actual person voted in wasn’t even the winner by popular vote. So by definition, it can not be democratic. Now I am by no means a fan of the electoral system and I think one van argue that the US fails to live up to being democratic in practice for several reasons (I consider the electoral college a very minot part of the issues), however saying that it can not be democratic by principle or definition it can not be a democracy. I mean let's remember that in Athens (where the term comes from) only a minority of male citizens was allowed to vote.
- xenophonf 4y ago
  I think that some of the problems with the EC would go away if the number of electors/House seats was updated to match current U.S. demographics. The last time that was changed was in the 1930s, if I recall correctly. In the first United States Congress, there were about 65 thousand Americans per representative. Nowadays, that ratio is closer to 760 thousand Americans per representative. Unfortunately, that kind of rebalancing has zero political support. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, while not as good a solution in my opinion as it doesn't fix the underlying problems with citizen representation, is probably more politically feasible in terms of fixing presidential elections.
  - afiori 4y ago
    Rebalancing the EC without addressing the widespread use of First Past the Post Winner Take All system used by most states would not do much. Currently it is perfectly possible to win the entire EC minus 2-3 states with less than 50% of the popular vote.
afiori 4y ago
If your definition of democracy is "nationwide popular vote to elect a single role" you will find that there are very few democracies around. Actually in the US the election of the president is remarkably linear. In Italy the actual head of state is elected by the parliament (with no underlying direct vote) and then during national elections 1) the people elect a new parliament (with a complex mixture of proportional/non-proportial seats) 2) the parliament proposes various governments to the head of state 3) the head of state selects (and makes suggestions for modifications) the government (the actual executive branch). And surely there are democracies that follow a more complex process. The main difference between the US and most other countries is that the US counts votes for the president federally and not nationally, and the difference would almost completely disappear if more states would follow Maine and Nebraska example and drop the Firts Past the Post election style. Democracy means that the legitimacy of the state is given by the people, not blood, not military, not religion, not oligarchs.

cycomanic 4y ago

> That doesn’t magically make it a democratic election. In fact, the way you describe it working is a relatively new way of doing things and varies from state to state. It is not uniform. Also, if you paid any attention at all in the last election, you’d realize how tenuous it all really is and in multiple elections, the actual person voted in wasn’t even the winner by popular vote. So by definition, it can not be democratic. Now I am by no means a fan of the electoral system and I think one van argue that the US fails to live up to being democratic in practice for several reasons (I consider the electoral college a very minot part of the issues), however saying that it can not be democratic by principle or definition it can not be a democracy. I mean let's remember that in Athens (where the term comes from) only a minority of male citizens was allowed to vote.

xenophonf 4y ago
I think that some of the problems with the EC would go away if the number of electors/House seats was updated to match current U.S. demographics. The last time that was changed was in the 1930s, if I recall correctly. In the first United States Congress, there were about 65 thousand Americans per representative. Nowadays, that ratio is closer to 760 thousand Americans per representative. Unfortunately, that kind of rebalancing has zero political support. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, while not as good a solution in my opinion as it doesn't fix the underlying problems with citizen representation, is probably more politically feasible in terms of fixing presidential elections.
- afiori 4y ago
  Rebalancing the EC without addressing the widespread use of First Past the Post Winner Take All system used by most states would not do much. Currently it is perfectly possible to win the entire EC minus 2-3 states with less than 50% of the popular vote.

afiori 4y ago

If your definition of democracy is "nationwide popular vote to elect a single role" you will find that there are very few democracies around. Actually in the US the election of the president is remarkably linear. In Italy the actual head of state is elected by the parliament (with no underlying direct vote) and then during national elections 1) the people elect a new parliament (with a complex mixture of proportional/non-proportial seats) 2) the parliament proposes various governments to the head of state 3) the head of state selects (and makes suggestions for modifications) the government (the actual executive branch). And surely there are democracies that follow a more complex process. The main difference between the US and most other countries is that the US counts votes for the president federally and not nationally, and the difference would almost completely disappear if more states would follow Maine and Nebraska example and drop the Firts Past the Post election style. Democracy means that the legitimacy of the state is given by the people, not blood, not military, not religion, not oligarchs.