USA a false democracy?

I heard that the Electoral College System although not absolutely democratic...... .was the only way that many of the States would join the union..... they knew that the massive populations in New York and California would dominate Presidential elections if they did not have this system.

 

The United States was never a Democracy.

 

We do not elect our leaders. Our leaders are "Selected" not "Elected"

Now that you have this distinction clear - What do you call that ?

 

What does it matter how our politicians are selected?

Its not like they would be less corrupt if the system were changed.

 

I don't accept your premise.

 

A republic.
If we were a democracy, we'd vote on everything ourselves.

 

Then you have been fooled - and are still entranced in "necessary illusion" - as are most folks. Mind you - that is changing. The anti Establishment movement is growing .. and one day will be the majority.

 

A Constitutional Republic to be precise.. which is distinguished from direct democracy as you suggest.

This however, does not mean a democratic process is not involved in decision making - as per the founding principles.

 

Republicans have long advocated for a Bourbon democracy. Small inert government that does little more than serve the interests of business.

 

This recurring theme of yours is so hypocritical. If Republicans held a majority of the voters, you would be extolling the virtues of the EC system.

But that aside, the more disturbing aspect of a pure popular vote for the office of president, is that the underlying desire is what I suspect is a desire to create a somewhat king-like office. It is a desire to have a singular leader that we obey, a singular leader who makes all the decisions.

Our Founders showed so much wisdom, and yet here we are (some of us) trying to undo that, turning us into subjects of a person.

Our Founders intended for the Congress to be the center of our politics. It is the place to fight the political battles. Congress is supposed to make the decisions that effect our lives - everything from economics to whether or not our nation undertakes war.

The President's job was simply to carry out the laws of Congress, nothing more. And what few powers the Founders gave to the President (such as appointments to the SCOTUS, cabinet posts) are subject to the approval of Congress. The President doesn't even have the power to go to war, and if the Congress approves a war, the President may command the military to execute that war.

And so the President may have a voice - a pulpit - but it is the Congress that is supposed to steer the country, not the President. The President, since he is elected by the states, is supposed to be a unifier, not a partisan of a party.

The reason these original intentions have been abandoned is that Congress has become cowardly and timid, choosing to abdicate its responsibilities, willingly giving them over to the President and the Supreme Court. And since the Congress won't lead, the People look for leadership elsewhere, in the Presidency. But seeking leadership in the person of one man or woman is dangerous and wrongheaded.

A solution to that problem would be strict term limits on the Congress and a return to the original intent.

You say everyone elects their chief executive by a pure popular vote except one. And in those countries, that chief executive represents the tyranny of the majority and has zero responsibility to anyone else.

Our system, as it was intended, is far better. I don't want the tyranny of the majority, and I don't want a king.

Seth

 

Not sure what this has to do with democracy in a constitutional republic though.

 

What do dogs have to do with German Shepherds?

 

Do you walk to work or take your lunch ?

 

USA a false democracy?

No. The USA is a Representative Democracy, or in briefer terms a Republic. Quite a few people appear to have forgotten what that means and why it was all created as it was.

We elect our chief executive via indirect means in a system that attempts to follow the will of the people while also balancing out the power among the independent States. At the same time it was intended as a check against a charismatic but ill intentioned leader taking over and destroying our democracy.If you do not like the system you are free to propose a change, and to seek after that change through the Constitutional processes long available to you.

Myself, I am not fond of the Electoral College as it has been applied since its creation.It began with good intentions but has never lived up to those intentions. Never the less I do not doubt that this Republic, this Representative Democracy continues to be the best example in human history of a government by and for the people.

 

I hope so.

 

You don't know what the Establishment is mate ..

 

Thanks for knowing what I know or don't know. I find mind reading very interesting.

 

There is no "Establishment" There wasn't any back in the 60s and there isn't any now. It's like "Cultural Marxism" or the "alt. right", another way of saying "anything I don't like". It's a nonexistent "movement" composed of nonexistent things. BS squared.

 

California was part of Spain (disputed by Russia) at the time the EC was formulated. The EC was part of the bargain formed with the slaveholding States to give them more electors than their voting population entitled them to.

 

No need to read your mind - and thank goodness, as that is a sordid prospect.

Is by your words that you express your mind - or lack thereof

and you have no clue what the Establishment is - if you think the President is "Elected" rather than "Selected" -

You see - one negates the other

 

Who said the Establishment was "a Movement" - certainly not I.

Just because you have no clue what you are talking about .. is no reason to twirl around in a circle babbling about cultural marxism and crying BS BS ?


I expect better from you Al - and have seen it in the past. The Establishment is simply the existing power structure ..

What strange rabbit hole you are wandering .. I am not sure.

 

There IS no "existing power structure" not at least as you are positing it to be. There is no "deep state" that nobody can really pin down or clearly define. The US government is large and complicated, as would be surely and entirely expected of the largest and most powerful human entity that has ever existed but it is a known thing, it has clear and well-established procedures for doing just about anything. Is THAT what you mean by "establishment"? I always called that "due process" and the guarantee of such is the main reason we remain a free people

 

Who made the bargain? The Establishment.

 

Of course there is an existing power structure - I would be a fool to think otherwise .. but what is it that you think I am positing - as I said nothing about any "Deep State"

Large and complicated while it may be - there are still rules .. and processes by which influence can take place. Only someone completely uninformed believes that there is no "Influence" in Washington.

So what have I posited thus-far that you have issues with - or did you have more made up things you wanted to attach to my good name prior acknowledging the reality that you have no clue what my definition of Establishment is.

 

No, the Constitutional Convention.

That is not just a matter of semantics. You can clearly trace all power in the Federal Government back to the Continental Congress and its major defining document, the Declaration of Independence. We have a GOVERNMENT, there never was an "establishment" or a "deep state". These are phantoms, more of the nonexistent "enemies" tyrants use to rob us of our rights so as to "protect" us from