What ever happened to "democracy" in America?

Time, milady. It is just a matter of time ...

 

Why do people like you think it is cast-in-concrete just because the selection of the Executive - in a tripartite system of governance (Executive, Legislative, Judicial) - got it wrong more than two centuries ago?

Age is no justification whatsoever for not correcting a fundamental error in any democracy. Especially when said democracy has wrongly elected its president five times in its history and twice in the past two decades.

(And all the BS-remarks of living in a Republic and not a Democracy is just that. Ignorant BS without the slightest foundation in logic. It's like saying a car is a car and not an automobile; which is ridiculous!)

Civics classes teach us differently. And it is patently obvious from this forum that passing a Civics course to obtain a High School degree.

The political and judicial leadership of the country, all together, are the heart of the nation - at both the state and the national levels. They are founded upon a key element of the separation of powers. Why? Because, at the time, in the 18th century, all those powers were retained by a monarch. (Supposedly enthroned by God, to give the process a theatrical touch.)

At the heart of any governance of the nation is the concept of the democratic will-of-the-people enshrined in the selection of the three powers - Executive, Legislative and Judicial, whether at the state or national levels. As regards the Judiciary, it was decided that the Supreme Court need not be elected by the people but named by the Executive and confirmed by the Legislature.

The Legislature (HofR, Senate) is elected by means of the popular-vote. It is only logical that the PotUS should be elected by the same means. No Electoral College is either necessary or appropriate - especially when (1) the number of electors from any state are not proportional to the number of voters and (2) the rule of winner-take-all decides for whom the state Electoral College must vote. (And the vote is gerrymanded to obtain a given result for each party in a two-party political system.)

The above is a patently obvious machination of the basic democratic freedom of the people nationally to elect their PotUS. S/he is the president of the people, all the nation's citizens, and not the states. The states have their representation manifested in Congress!

Period.

 

Indeed. Everybody has the right to vote their representatives (individuals who represent them in person within the HofR or the Senate) to government on all three levels - local, state and national!

When voting for the president of the nation, why should anyone else's vote in their state be any more important than my vote in my state?

An historical mistake was made within the Constitution by means of the 12th Amendment. The Constitution is not the bible, it is a working document - and we have amended it a good many times.

Let us now amend it by forbidding any other vote than the popular-vote and no gerrymandering of voting districts. More than 200 years of political-voting shenanigans is enough, enough, enough!

Period.

 

Those "guarantees" were ill-considered because one of them tampered with the fundamental right to vote for political office fairly as regards ONLY ONE POSITION. That of the PotUS, who happens to be the head of one of only three fundamental components of the nation's governance - that is, the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary.

Also part of the "tampering" intended to provide a designed but illicit political outcome was gerrymandering at the state level of voting, which was also invented at the start of the 19th century.

Why do people on this forum NOT understand that Electoral College and Gerrymandering are heinous manipulations of the popular-vote and therefore the very nature of our democracy as well as its authenticity ...

 

I responded to your post with the word that truly describes the man - he not "black" and not "white". He is mulatto - and that is not in the least bit derogatory.

And so, what if he is mulatto? He's pretty damn smart - which is ALL that matters as regards the presidency of our nation ... !

 

If you think that the Electoral College was a "voting right", you are quite wrong. Not on any other nation on earth is such a manipulation of the popular-vote employed. All others employ the popular vote, which decides (for the most part) the majority in Parliament (HofR). The Senate, if there is one, has much constrained voting rights - and in some countries they are constituted of local mayors at regional ("state") levels elected as Senators.

The only singular difference is that some countries do not have a separately elected Executive (in charge of the government). The leader of the winning party in the Legislature (HofR) is considered, ipso facto, the head of government.

Which means that in such countries, Germany is an example, Merkel (as head of her party) must now constitute a government majority in parliament amongst other parties that won a number of seats. And to pass any laws, she will have to negotiate with all the constituent parties such that they all vote "in-line" the same way. (It aint easy.)

 

Why should the small states agree to that amendment? What benefit do they gain other then losing their voice in who is president? What you are asking is for me to go to my Congressman and Senator and ask them to screw me. Why should any voter of a small state agree to that?

 

Only the over-entitled have the arrogance to equate loss of unearned privilege with "Waaaaaah! I'm screwed!"

The problem is that the popular vote will never be instituted so long as gerrymandering favors the Republicans. So the only way I see to actually affect change is to beat them at their own game -- get the country gerrymandered in the Democrats' favor, and I guarantee every Republican currently arguing against the popular vote will have a sudden and vocal change of heart.

Spoiler

I do have a pipe dream that if our republic survives the Trump administration, moderate Americans will finally be shocked into taking a hard look at the EC, and we may just get the mandate we need to stop the tyranny of the minority from ever happening again. But that's a pipe dream, so we can't just wait for it to happen.

 

The Republicans are already going to lose that race. The demographic change in America is quickly going in the direction of the Democrats. Gerrymandering should be stopped that I totally agree with. Especially since I am not a Democrat or Republican. But the EC protects my voice in who is the president so of course I favor it.

 

ROFL on not that old canard again. The Electoral College was created so that the STATES could elect the President. And originally the State Legislatures choose the States slate of electors there was NO voting by citizens in their states. A State legislature could choose to do it again and the state citizens would have no constitutional challenge against it.

The Constitution is no guaranty any citizen gets to cast a vote for their slate of electors let alone the President. No citizen in this country has EVER cast a direct vote for a President of Vice-President. There is no national popular vote here.

 

That is at the state level not the federal level.

 

You really do not understand, do you.

States have their rights first-and-foremost at the national level by means of Congress (both chambers). But individuals in states do not have naturally any more right than another voter in another state as regards the presidential vote.

And yet, the Electoral College overthrows that notion of "fairness" - first by giving the voters in some states more weight in their vote of Electoral College delegates, and also more total-vote weight by means of the "winner-take-all rule".

That last rule makes the HofR look like a horse-race, where the winner takes all the prize.

It is non-democratic, unfair, illicit, and manipulative ... for which the 12th Amendment should be rescinded ...

 

I do understand, I do not agree, there is a difference. The 12th is doing what was intended, Why as a citizen of a smaller state should they want to change things when it would not benefit them?

 

You're Right in that comment highlighted above.

The 12th was designed to pervert the vote. It has indeed accomplished that fact.

Any country that votes the presidency of the most powerful nation on earth should do it correctly. No other democracy on earth corrupts its Executive voting process like the US. None, nada, zip, kiener, aucun, nessuno, kanénas ... !

 

The sole benefit is to make the United States a "real democracy".

You are ignorant of the fact that "winning" by means of falsifying the popular-vote is anti-democratic. In any democracy on earth, and there are many, all politicians are voted into office by means of the popular-vote.

The US is the ONLY COUNTRY ON EARTH THAT DOES NOT OBSERVE THAT RULE FOR THE EXECUTIVE POSITION!

What you should have learned in a Civics Class:
*All democracies have three fundamental characteristics: The independence of the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial powers. These three "independent" bodies are the only guaranties of real freedom of a nation from "usurpation" of political power.
*All such democracies employ the popular-vote to designate their representative to the Executive and Legislative positions, with the exception of the Judiciary (that is nominated by the Executive, but approved by the Legislature).
*All political positions (local, state and national) in a truly democratic nation will be obtained by means of the popular-vote and only the popular-voting process.
*The voting regulations will describe and conduct fair and equitable voting-procedures at regular intervals in order to assure the collective consent by means of a popular-vote of the nation's constituents of voting age.
*By "fair voting procedures" is meant:
**No voter with a proper identity card, of a stipulated age, and proving their residence will be forbidden to vote.
**No voting district will be "gerrymandered" to concentrate the vote favoring any political party
**Voting hours and procedures will be fair and honest to accomodate the largest number possible of all voters.

Period.

 

Absurd. The contention that the popular-vote is the sole determinator of an election is based upon democratic principles of fairness and equitability of all citizens regardless of where they live.

Which is a concept beyond the intelligence of many Yanks who think they live in the "Greatest Democracy on Earth".

What infantile idiocy ... !

 

No YOU don't understand our history or our government. Congress has it's power by means of the States. And voters have no right to even vote for the President and Vice-President and no citizen ever has cast a vote to elect either. The STATES elect them.

STATES elect the President. Why can't you get that through your head?

When the vote was taken for independence and the establishment of the United STATES the citizens didn't vote on it. The STATES voted on it and while the various delegations had membership reflective of their population each STATE only got ONE VOTE and the vote had to be unanimous not a majority, unanimous. When the Constitution was adopted it was not a vote of the citizens it was by vote of the STATES.

 

Had the founding fathers GUARANTIED we would not be on there would be no United States of America.

Again your fundamental ignorance of our history and our system of governments.

 

You do know that insulting the people who are trying to have a friendly debate with you is boorish. While I may disagree with you it does not make me less educated, infantile, or an idiot. You do want to have discussions on this forum correct? You do want to convince others that your position is the right one correct? Well the only way you will achieve that is by having discussions with those willing to converse. Once you get the reputation as someone that only wants to insult and ridicule people that do want to do more then troll will begin to ignore you.

Now to your point, I understand the benefits of the popular vote. So do our states and that is why we use the popular vote in determining our electors. At the same time I also understand that regional differences means that there are vastly different people in Kansas then there are in California. But if we only used the popular vote then who ever California wanted would win over what Kansas wanted. Yet Kansas and California are supposed to have a say in who is president. The only way found so far to do that is the EC. The fact that no other country does it this way is irrelevant, the USA sets its own standards and rightly so. I would not want to be like the British and have our Congress (the most similar to the House of Commons) choose the President.

 

I said you were "ignorant of the fact", not that you were ignorant.

From Dictionary.com, Ignorant = lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact:

The above in red is irrelevant. And you are confusing the "separation of powers".

The purpose of the popular-vote is to elect the person most trusted by the people to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with the desires/values of their constituents.

People living in states who have specific issues/likes/dislikes that they wish defended/promoted are able to do so when electing their representatives to Congress. The presidency is an executive position with enormous power, and a Constitutional amendment should not be manipulating the voting process to select the person who will occupy that key position.

The PotUS should be elected just like all the other elected officials - by means of a popular-vote.

The separation of powers is well-balance when and only when all the positions of governance are elected fairly and properly. Most are in our nation, from City-hall to State to National governance - with the sole exception of the presidency ...

 

That part is the most relevant to the discussion if you want people from the smaller states to agree with your proposal. Without those states you will not be able to remove or change that amendment. You have not shown where their interests would be protected nor have you shown any reason why they would want to place a limit on there ability to influence the Presidency.

 

I'd love, LOVE to believe the bolded, but I don't see any reason to. And even if it does, the Republican elites will likely just get better and better at manipulating the rules and gradually tightening their chokehold on elections and on our freedoms, so the Dems can't even depend on a net zero from where I'm sitting. But I'm curious, what's your reasoning?

I've said it once, and I'll say it again: People vote, not land.

We of the small states have the undue and unearned privilage of greater electoral voices than less fortunate citizens. It's an inequitable, unproportional, counter-democratic, and anachronistic state of affairs. When people vote, we have democracy; when land votes, we have feudalism. The more that land warps our democracy, the more our democracy is tainted by a hint of the bad old days before America. Patriotism and our basic sense of fairness dictate that we put away simple self-interest, in order that our fellow Americans have the same voice which we do.

 

Too your first part I believe that the current batch of 20 somethings have embraced the liberal stances on most subjects from minority rights to large government over small. We could speak endlessly about why this is good or bad but it is very obvious that once they come into power they will be voting Democrat more then Republican. The other reason is that in the next thirty years you will see whites in America become the largest minority instead of the majority. So unless the Republicans can work on their outreach with those demographics they will also loose power.

As to your second, we are a group of states that formed this country to represent our citizens as a country. Each state is unique and each states citizens deserve to be heard. If we did go to popular vote then many of them would not be heard. How would you convince the people in smaller states to agree too have less of a voice then they do now?

 

I think France is the only country that elects by popular vote. The rest are chosen by elected representatives. They don't call it the E.C. but that's what it is.

 

Eh, maybe. The highest priority of conservatism is to preserve and propagate conservatism at all costs, though. I bet we start seeing a lot more minorities among the Republican elite to appeal to younger voters, like Rubio, Carsen, and Fiorina. The faces will diversify, but I'm not at all convinced that the Republican party will moderate itself at all, or stop winning elections. The conservative ecosystem of "news," punditry, and politicians has gotten really good at emphasizing identity and its own increasingly extremist values, and getting people to vote those values and identities over their own and our country's best interest.

Just spitballing here, but we could offer every state the one-time opportunity to join a larger state. Think being part of a big state is preferable to a small one? Well then go ahead and get that merger started! And as a perk, I'd bet we'd get some mighty interesting (non-contiguous) states and interesting state names. Merging with a conservative state might mean you have to take its name, but a big liberal state might be ok with hyphenation.



Alternatively, and I'd hate to have to pander to self-interest like this, but money has a good track record of changing minds. Don't want to see your small-state privilege disappear with the popular vote? Here's a one-time check worth a few hundred bucks, do with it as you please, and thanks for doing the right thing.