why we are a republic, NOT a democracy

Hillary Clinton blamed the Electoral College for her stunning defeat in the 2016 presidential election in her latest memoirs, “What Happened.”

Some have claimed that the Electoral College is one of the most dangerous institutions in American politics.

Why? They say the Electoral College system, as opposed to a simple majority vote, distorts the one-person, one-vote principle of democracy because electoral votes are not distributed according to population.

To back up their claim, they point out that the Electoral College gives, for example, Wyoming citizens disproportionate weight in a presidential election.

Put another way, Wyoming, a state with a population of about 600,000, has one member in the House of Representatives and two members in the U.S. Senate, which gives the citizens of Wyoming three electoral votes, or one electoral vote per 200,000 people.

California, our most populous state, has more than 39 million people and 55 electoral votes, or approximately one vote per 715,000 people.

Comparatively, individuals in Wyoming have nearly four times the power in the Electoral College as Californians.

Many people whine that using the Electoral College instead of the popular vote and majority rule is undemocratic. I’d say that they are absolutely right. Not deciding who will be the president by majority rule is not democracy.

But the Founding Fathers went to great lengths to ensure that we were a republic and not a democracy. In fact, the word democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or any other of our founding documents.

How about a few quotations expressed by the Founders about democracy?

In Federalist Paper No. 10, James Madison wanted to prevent rule by majority faction, saying, “Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.”

John Adams warned in a letter, “Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet, that did not commit suicide.”

Edmund Randolph said, “That in tracing these evils to their origin, every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.”

Then-Chief Justice John Marshall observed, “Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.”

The Founders expressed contempt for the tyranny of majority rule, and throughout our Constitution, they placed impediments to that tyranny. Two houses of Congress pose one obstacle to majority rule. That is, 51 senators can block the wishes of 435 representatives and 49 senators.

The president can veto the wishes of 535 members of Congress. It takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress to override a presidential veto.

To change the Constitution requires not a majority but a two-thirds vote of both houses, and if an amendment is approved, it requires ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures.

Finally, the Electoral College is yet another measure that thwarts majority rule. It makes sure that the highly populated states—today, mainly 12 on the east and west coasts, cannot run roughshod over the rest of the nation. That forces a presidential candidate to take into consideration the wishes of the other 38 states.

Those Americans obsessed with rule by popular majorities might want to get rid of the Senate, where states, regardless of population, have two senators.

Should we change representation in the House of Representatives to a system of proportional representation and eliminate the guarantee that each state gets at least one representative?

Currently, seven states with populations of 1 million or fewer have one representative, thus giving them disproportionate influence in Congress.

While we’re at it, should we make all congressional acts by majority rule? When we’re finished with establishing majority rule in Congress, should we then move to change our court system, which requires unanimity in jury decisions, to a simple majority rule?

My question is: Is it ignorance of or contempt for our Constitution that fuels the movement to abolish the Electoral College?




https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/why-we-are-republic-not-democracy
 
Democracy in ancient Greece sort of worked because only the well to do voted.
Mob rule never works.

To answer the question, its simple whining. They give a hundred reasons for losing none of which is their candidate ran a poor campaign.
 
Last edited:
Democracy in ancient Greece sort of worked because only the well to do voted.
Mob rule never works.

To answer the question, its simple whining. They give a hundred reasons for losing none of which is their candidate ran a poor campaign.

My memory is bad, but I thought they chose by lot?

I support the electoral college but don't understand why it would be mob rule to elect the president by poplar vote but not governors, senators, representatives, etc.
 
I support the electoral college but don't understand why it would be mob rule to elect the president by poplar vote but not governors, senators, representatives, etc.

Our founders understood that a pure democratic popular vote would result in a few high populated states deciding every election which would relegate the smaller states to obscurity and not give them any say in elections. Therefore, the electoral college was selected. It was brilliant.

They also feared an uneducated mob voting for dishonest politicians who would promise them free stuff. That pretty much describes the Democratic Party of the Jackass these days.
 
How about a few quotations expressed by the Founders about democracy?

Morris: In wondering whether the revolution has gotten out of hand warned “…the mob (has) begun to think and reason.”

Gerry: In discussing the country’s problems said “...the evil we experience flow from the excesses of democracy.”

Mason: “It would be as unnatural ... to let the people choose the president as it would be to refer a trial of colors to a blind man.”

Hamilton: “The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true in fact. The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge right.”

Sherman: “The people immediately should have as little to do as may be about the government.”

Gouverneur Morris: Morris argued for property qualifications for the voters and stated “give the votes to the people who have no property and they will sell them to the rich who will be able to buy them.”


Of course, the electoral college does not provide for any popular votes for president. To stick to the original document, should the state legislatures revert to choosing electors and U. S. Senators.
 
Our founders understood that a pure democratic popular vote would result in a few high populated states deciding every election which would relegate the smaller states to obscurity and not give them any say in elections. Therefore, the electoral college was selected. It was brilliant.

They also feared an uneducated mob voting for dishonest politicians who would promise them free stuff. That pretty much describes the Democratic Party of the Jackass these days.

I understand. But my question was why it is mob rule to elect a president by popular vote but not other offices like governor and Senator.

We essentially do have mob rule in electing the president since the popular vote winner almost always wins the electoral vote which was determined by the voters in each state.
 
We are a representative democracy, just like all the other western liberal democracies of Europe and North America.

It is true some of the more conservative founders distrusted democratic institutions and were only willing to concede the House of Representatives as concession to democracy. The constitution has been repeatedly modified by the states since 1789 to become more and more democratic, more and more representative. That is a historical tide that is not going to be changed. A democracy requires an educated and informed citizenry and the average citizen of the 21st century is vastly more educated that an average citizen from the 18th century.

As for the electoral college, you are not fooling anyone. Republicans only prefer the EC when it allows them to win.

THE BUSH CAMPAIGN PLOTTED TO REJECT ELECTION RESULTS IN 2000 If AL GORE WON THE EC WHILE LOSING THE POPULAR VOTE

it’s almost forgotten now, the George W. Bush campaign was planning to challenge the results of the 2000 vote if he lost the electoral vote, but won the popular vote. His campaign hoped to spark a national movement to pressure members of the Electoral College in states where the popular vote went for Al Gore to ignore that and instead vote in line with the national popular vote — thus making Bush president.

In the end, the reverse happened. Bush won the Electoral College vote while losing the popular vote.

But in the weeks before the November 7, 2000, election, it seemed more likely that Gore would get a majority of electoral votes, while Bush, lifted by a wide margin in his home state of Texas, would have the most votes by actual people. This possibility was widely discussed, including in the Boston Globe and Christian Science Monitor and in an Associated Press polling analysis.

Gore was even preemptively criticized for winning under these circumstances. It “would be an outrage” said Rep. Ray LaHood, R.-Ill. NBC’s Chris Matthews said that “knowing him as we do, [Gore] may have no problem taking the presidential oath after losing the popular vote to George W. Bush.”
https://theintercept.com/2016/10/21...n-plotted-to-reject-election-results-in-2000/

DONALD TRUMP OUTRAGED IN 2012 WHEN HE THOUGHT ROMNEY WOULD WIN THE POPULAR VOTE WHILE LOSING THE EC

"The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy! Obama lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election. We should have a revolution in this country!...More votes equals a loss … revolution!"

-Donald Trump tweeting the election night 2012 when he thought Obama would win the EC while losing the popular vote
 
I understand. But my question was why it is mob rule to elect a president by popular vote but not other offices like governor and Senator.

We essentially do have mob rule in electing the president since the popular vote winner almost always wins the electoral vote which was determined by the voters in each state.

Okay let's try this; if leftists outnumbered Conservatives and wanted a vote on forcing everyone to hate Trump, how would you feel then?
 
My memory is bad, but I thought they chose by lot?

I support the electoral college but don't understand why it would be mob rule to elect the president by poplar vote but not governors, senators, representatives, etc.

As i recall from high school, just the upper crust voted. Slaves and peons were not included.
 
We are a representative democracy, just like all the other western liberal democracies of Europe and North America.

Wrong; we are UNIQUE in that regard. Other western liberal democracies are not a republic of states and have parliamentary rule.

It is true some of the more conservative founders distrusted democratic institutions and were only willing to concede the House of Representatives as concession to democracy. The constitution has been repeatedly modified by the states since 1789 to become more and more democratic, more and more representative. That is a historical tide that is not going to be changed. A democracy requires an educated and informed citizenry and the average citizen of the 21st century is vastly more educated that an average citizen from the 18th century.

Democrats believe that MORE voters regardless of education will be better for them.

As for the electoral college, you are not fooling anyone. Republicans only prefer the EC when it allows them to win.

LIE and LAME. But YOU only dislike the EC when YOU don't win. ;)
 
Our founders understood that a pure democratic popular vote would result in a few high populated states deciding every election which would relegate the smaller states to obscurity and not give them any say in elections. Therefore, the electoral college was selected. It was brilliant.

They also feared an uneducated mob voting for dishonest politicians who would promise them free stuff. That pretty much describes the Democratic Party of the Jackass these days.

democracy-ui-two-wolves-and-a-sheep-voting-on-whats-31469275.png
 
Okay let's try this; if leftists outnumbered Conservatives and wanted a vote on forcing everyone to hate Trump, how would you feel then?

That is protected by the Constitution, not any restrictions on voting.

If leftists were elected to the president and both houses of Congress under the electoral college why couldn't that still happen?

Is it mob rule that elected the House and Senate today? If we elect any officials through popular vote, why isn't that mob rule?

Or, do you oppose any popular votes like the original Constitution (except the House)?
 
My memory is bad, but I thought they chose by lot?

I support the electoral college but don't understand why it would be mob rule to elect the president by poplar vote but not governors, senators, representatives, etc.

the election systems set up represented the 3 bodies of our country. the people (congress), the states(senate), and the country (electoral college)
 
Hillary Clinton blamed the Electoral College for her stunning defeat in the 2016 presidential election in her latest memoirs, “What Happened.”

Some have claimed that the Electoral College is one of the most dangerous institutions in American politics.

Why? They say the Electoral College system, as opposed to a simple majority vote, distorts the one-person, one-vote principle of democracy because electoral votes are not distributed according to population.

To back up their claim, they point out that the Electoral College gives, for example, Wyoming citizens disproportionate weight in a presidential election.

Put another way, Wyoming, a state with a population of about 600,000, has one member in the House of Representatives and two members in the U.S. Senate, which gives the citizens of Wyoming three electoral votes, or one electoral vote per 200,000 people.

California, our most populous state, has more than 39 million people and 55 electoral votes, or approximately one vote per 715,000 people.

Comparatively, individuals in Wyoming have nearly four times the power in the Electoral College as Californians.

Many people whine that using the Electoral College instead of the popular vote and majority rule is undemocratic. I’d say that they are absolutely right. Not deciding who will be the president by majority rule is not democracy.

But the Founding Fathers went to great lengths to ensure that we were a republic and not a democracy. In fact, the word democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or any other of our founding documents.

How about a few quotations expressed by the Founders about democracy?

In Federalist Paper No. 10, James Madison wanted to prevent rule by majority faction, saying, “Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.”

John Adams warned in a letter, “Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet, that did not commit suicide.”

Edmund Randolph said, “That in tracing these evils to their origin, every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.”

Then-Chief Justice John Marshall observed, “Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.”

The Founders expressed contempt for the tyranny of majority rule, and throughout our Constitution, they placed impediments to that tyranny. Two houses of Congress pose one obstacle to majority rule. That is, 51 senators can block the wishes of 435 representatives and 49 senators.

The president can veto the wishes of 535 members of Congress. It takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress to override a presidential veto.

To change the Constitution requires not a majority but a two-thirds vote of both houses, and if an amendment is approved, it requires ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures.

Finally, the Electoral College is yet another measure that thwarts majority rule. It makes sure that the highly populated states—today, mainly 12 on the east and west coasts, cannot run roughshod over the rest of the nation. That forces a presidential candidate to take into consideration the wishes of the other 38 states.

Those Americans obsessed with rule by popular majorities might want to get rid of the Senate, where states, regardless of population, have two senators.

Should we change representation in the House of Representatives to a system of proportional representation and eliminate the guarantee that each state gets at least one representative?

Currently, seven states with populations of 1 million or fewer have one representative, thus giving them disproportionate influence in Congress.

While we’re at it, should we make all congressional acts by majority rule? When we’re finished with establishing majority rule in Congress, should we then move to change our court system, which requires unanimity in jury decisions, to a simple majority rule?

My question is: Is it ignorance of or contempt for our Constitution that fuels the movement to abolish the Electoral College?




https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/why-we-are-republic-not-democracy

Fact is before it won elections for the Repubs, most of them wanted to abolish it. It was thought of as quaint, a relic to the past rooted in dismissing the vote of the masses and allowing the elite to overpower the vote. It was not a better and fairer way, just one that disguised the power still in the hands of the wealthy.
 
Democracy in ancient Greece sort of worked because only the well to do voted.
Mob rule never works.

To answer the question, its simple whining. They give a hundred reasons for losing none of which is their candidate ran a poor campaign.

Do you think we should limit who is allowed to vote?
 
the election systems set up represented the 3 bodies of our country. the people (congress), the states(senate), and the country (electoral college)

But the election system did not involve the public voting in the Senate or electoral college.

The question was why is electing the president by popular vote "mob rule" but the election of other offices (governor, etc.) by popular vote not the same example of mob rule? A smaller mob (state, congressional district) is still a mob.
 
Fact is before it won elections for the Repubs, most of them wanted to abolish it. It was thought of as quaint, a relic to the past rooted in dismissing the vote of the masses and allowing the elite to overpower the vote. It was not a better and fairer way, just one that disguised the power still in the hands of the wealthy.

yeah, but i'm not a republican, so...........to my Libertarian mindset, it's the backbone of our election system and needs to stay that way. I'm even for reversing the amendment that lets senators popular vote also
 
But the election system did not involve the public voting in the Senate or electoral college.

The question was why is electing the president by popular vote "mob rule" but the election of other offices (governor, etc.) by popular vote not the same example of mob rule? A smaller mob (state, congressional district) is still a mob.

because the cornerstone of our republic is the protection of individual rights, so the smaller the entity, the better the protection. its why states have districts for state legislatures, and a statewide vote for governor.........etc.
 
Democracy in ancient Greece sort of worked because only the well to do voted.
Mob rule never works.

To answer the question, its simple whining. They give a hundred reasons for losing none of which is their candidate ran a poor campaign.


but won three million more living breathing Americans votes


they only way trump won was Russian fake news and facebook manipulations




Oh and BY they way NO AMERICAN would suggest just rich people could vote


Your russo bot hole status has been confirmed
 
Back
Top