Only the total majority vote!

Despite dictionary definition, the distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance.

Democracy: In a democracy 51% beats 49%. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights granted by a condescending majority. A democracy is a dictatorship of the majority.

Republic: No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Minority individual rights are the priority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy. The Constitution and Bill of Rights (hence we have a Republic) prohibits the government from limiting or taking away certain inalienable rights of the people, even if that government was freely chosen by a majority of the people.

There is a great, great essential difference between the two words.

 

Just because they're fundamentally the same does not mean they're effectively the same. Googles online dictionary is a great reference, but its by no means complete.

Perhaps a popular leftist publication can pick up where googles online dictionary left you hanging:

"You won’t find the word “democracy” in either the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution. The United States of America was established as a Republic — period.

So, what’s the difference between a republic and a democracy? Glad you asked because it is so important to today’s debate about social equality and government involvement in our lives.

A republic is guided by an overarching set of laws — a charter or constitution — which, in our country’s case, explicitly guarantees the individual’s rights against the desires of the majority. Each of us has the indisputable right to think, worship and vote anyway we want.

A true democracy, on the other hand, (stay with me on this) allows the majority to rule and to disregard the desires of any individual who doesn’t agree with them."

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_6306120

Its not a question of states rights. Its a question of contractual obligation. If the conditions under which a state agreed to join the union are undermined, the state no longer has an obligation to honor the union. Voiding the Constitution (by voiding elements of it) outside of the agreed upon procedures (a Constitutional Convention- an extremely difficult process) voids the entire establishment.

 

You are quite likely correct - and the first in this exchange to do so! Likely because you were born of a generation that got adequate learning (in high-school) of "Civics".

The country is evolving, however. It will become more Centrist as it ages. Neither wholly on the Right, nor the Left.

People will make up their own minds about political differences because our kids today are getting a better training in Civics.

From here:
Excerpt:

People control the process of establishing laws on the state and national level. But, as I never tire of saying, Never ever is a state governor elected by an Electoral College.

So, why should we be doing so for a PotUS?

The Electoral College is an anachronism born at a time when the US had no roads. So, getting tabulated voting results to Congress as a hazardous process. Which is why they cooked-up the EC. And, whilst doing so, they warped the popular-vote by means of the EC's "winner-takes-all-the-votes" rule. Which is how the loser of the popular-vote was elected into the White House five times in the nation's history - and the last time with the present oaf sitting in the Oval Office!

The EC is squarely in contradiction with the True Values of both a Democracy or a Republic - however you might want to call it. ONLY THE POPULAR-VOTE COUNTS IN ANY ELECTION. And the sole exception to that rule (amongst developed countries) is the USofA in its election of the Executive ...

 

Fourteen million more voted against Trump than for him.

It will over twenty million more voting against him next year.

 

Republicans do not want a democracy because they do not represent America and would never win another election.

The remainder of the country however...

 

Sez you.

And only because you cannot abide with my arguing that both words are fundamentally the same in essence.

 

Easy to say after you edit out my refutation.

You're not really here to debate are you?

 

Neither are you, modernpaladin.

 

Only in your mind.

Conservatives have this abiding fascination for the word Republic, because they think it means they can vote to have their state secede from the Union.

Uh, the last time that happened was a long, long time ago. It took a war and 640,000 deaths to settle that question.

But, still, in the minds of some ultra-Rightists, they cannot divide themselves from the notion that a Republic prevails over a Democracy. (And reasons given are all spurious.)

Your bad ...

 

You're not even American so never mind.

 

We're America, you're France. Which one is better? We are. You don't get it because you don't understand American culture and American exceptionalism.

 

I'll explain why it's a bad idea again.

If we don't use the winner take all system [within each state], there will be a strong inherent incentive for each state to falsify their election results. By using the winner take all system, the election results within each state are much less likely to be in question.
It's not like a state where 70% of its population voted for candidate A is going to claim that 85% voted for candidate A, because there would be no point.

If you do away with the current system, every election is going to be contested and you're going to throw the system into chaos.

Hopefully it doesn't need explaining why it's a bad idea for the federal government to take over counting the election results.

 

Where have I heard that before? I don't think you understand how America works.

 

Also to clarify, I'm not opposing other methods of moving away from the winner take all system, but I don't think that's what you were specifically referring to with your "total majority vote".

Some of these terminologies can have multiple meanings in different contexts, so it can be a little confusing.

Hopefully you have brains enough to understand what I'm saying and it doesn't need further explaining.

 

Our democracy is made according to principles held by those during its construction. That is how our Constitution was decided - with ample thought given to the fact that NO SINGLE HEREDITARY FAMILY SHOULD RULE THE NATION.

Except that, when our forefathers got into the nitty-gritty of how elections were made, the South was already in a frenzy about its slavery. The North was very heavily against the ownership of slaves, whilst for the south slavery was essential to both its economy (based upon cotton) and its lifestyle. America's "southerners" could not abide by the rule that "individual freedom was universal" and thus regardless of colour.

Which led ultimately to the Civil War, when it cost 640,000 lives to settle the question. And those who rant today about the US not being a Democracy but a Republic are making all over again the very same mistake!

What you do/say/think as an individual is your business. What I do/say/think as an individual is my business. But when we are talking about "mutual business" - like local, state or national governance - that "individual rule" no longer applies! Our "business" becomes common.

What is best is thus what the majority decides in "fair and honest elections" of its representatives to Congress. In this manner, sometimes one wins, sometimes one loses.

Regardless, one gets on with living freely - that is, with the right to express one's opinion freely in all circumstances. Which is the most important of all freedoms!

And is what we are doing here and now in this forum ... !

 

Germany is the same way. Their democracy gave the world Hitler who stomped a mudhole in your asses after you wet your pants and then our screwed up Republic had to come save you. The French are better served arguing about things that don't matter, like the Paris Accords.

 

I havn't tried make my position appear stronger by editing out other peoples points. All I've done is offer a dissenting opinion backed up by explanation and supporting media.

Which is debating.

 

Eh, a few million of those were illegal aliens.

Burden of proof is on you if you want to prove that's not the case.
Oh, but I forgot, the way the voting system is set up in these states it's not possible to have proof.

 

I absolutely understand how America works on many levels, I am sure many of them exceede my understanding but I do understand the basic principles. What worked 200+ years ago however doesn’t seem to be working any longer. The country is dropping by just about every conceivable metric.

 

I'd like to believe that, but ...

They continue to win elections for what reason? People think that their jobs are related to Replicant congressmen and women who further the interests of BigBusiness and therefore assure their jobs? (Nothing could be further from the truth! When profits fall, management cuts costs and we, the sheeple, are the first to go.)

And yet vast swaths of rural middle-America vote solidly Replicant. Nonetheless, if you read enough about the Replicant/Dem divide, it seems that more and more people are voting "in the middle". That is, according to how a candidate projects his-or-her ideas. Meaning these voters can swing either way.

Still, one factor is certain. Until Congress addresses the 12th Amendment and rids it of its "winner-take-all-rule", nothing much will happen. It is devious reckoning when a fair and open vote on a presidential candidate is WHACKED by the Electoral College because the consequence is that the voted winner takes ALL THE EC VOTES.

At the heart of any voting process in a free democracy is that voting results determine purely and simply the winner. Except in the USofA presidential elections due to the cockamamie and warped "Electoral College" ....

 

You have zero evidence that a few million votes were fraudulent. trumps tweets do not count.

 

God, Democrats say this over and over and over and hope they persuade us our own state system protects us all. But not in CA it does not protect Citizens from illegals voting. CA welcomes illegals. Why not have them vote. They are treated as royals in CA by this government.

 

When Democrats win the EC, never do they commence to whine about the EC system of voting. Funny innit?

 

Period, me arse. Just because you say so does not make it historically factual. You need to go further back in time to define the origins of words.

Both words democracy and republic actually come from France where they were coined from the original Greek and Latin - and in both instances meant "government of the people". ) How's that?

Here's how:
*The origin of the word Republic is both French and Latin. Namely, late 16th century: from French république, from Latin respublica, from res‘ (entity, concern) + publicus ‘of the people, or public’. The origin of the word Democracy is also greek and then Latin, and borrowed by the French also in the late 16th century to create the word in French démocratie, which is via late Latin from Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos ‘the people’ + -kratia ‘power, rule’.
*In both instances above what is the determinant key-word? THE PEOPLE ... !

It is ONLY IN AMERICA that has arisen the notion that the US is a "republic" but not a "democracy". Most likely due to the fact that Replicants strove to underscore the name of their political-party. With no real concern for its origins!

 

There is no distinction. As I have explained elsewhere in a post here in this forum.