What we 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 offices (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 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 one political party or group of parties **Voting hours and procedures will be fair and honest to accommodate the largest number possible of all voters.
What I've bolded is not necessarily so. Confederacies often have their members appointed by the people's representatives in the constituent bodies. Until the 17th amendment the US had such a system for the Senate. Nor are executives always elected by direct popular vote. In fact, the majority of the democracies in the world have their executive appointed by the people's representatives in the legislature. It's called the majoritarian or parliamentary system. Used by Australia, the UK, Canada, etc. I like your post, the only flaw is the notion that democracy on a more local level is not democracy.
Can't imagine what you mean by a "confederacy". It exists nowhere except in 19th-century American history. (And the imagination of some stonehead far-Right Replicants.) Those who would keep the Electoral College, ignorant of the principles of a True Democracy, are simply trying to maintain the electoral status-quo because it suits their own pathetic political objectives. (Donald Dork is an illegitimate PotUS.) The foremost of those objectives is low-taxation so they can keep the Unfair Upper Incomes (employed mindlessly on the BoobTube) used to maintain the electoral status-quo and dominance of the Replicant Party. Inordinately low upper-income taxation is the principal cause of the enormous Income Disparity that exists in the US - and one of the reasons why 14% of the American population lives permanently below the Poverty Threshold. The Rich and Super-Rich are controlling the present "electoral system" that permits their ridiculously low taxation. They have continuously influenced political outcomes, first and foremost by manipulating election donations. Meaning this: *Any sane nation would put a limit on the amount of money collected by any politician running for office. (But also provide the free air-time to address their constituency.) *Any sane nation would do away with both the Electoral College and Gerrymandering the state-voting that perversely influence presently the popular-vote. We are not a politically sane nation and have not been since Reckless Ronnie opened the political donation floodgates by reducing upper-income taxation. See here. Look at the precipitous decline in tax-rates as of 1980. Why in hell JFK/LBJ ever started the decent in upper-income taxation is one of the strangest elements of American history ....
How very American-centric. Just think of all those countries with parliaments not being proper democracies
Well, the subject of this particular debate string is "centric". And for purposes of direct comparison, the best is the EU and the US. (Get it?) The thread is focusing upon the American system of democracy. Which Americans seem to think is the "best in the world". And it elected as PotUS an individual who lost the popular-vote five times in its history - twice in the past two decades?!? Largely because of gerrymandering votes towards predetermined electoral conclusions. Your democracy is not the democracy that the EU is pursuing. Just who do Americans think they are fooling? (More than likely, themselves ...)
You said, "*All political offices (local, state and national) in a truly democratic nation will be obtained by means of the popular-vote and only the popular-voting process." Parliaments work quite well in the UK for instance. The House of Commons has 650 members to a population of 65 million. The US Congress has 435 voting members to a population of 323 Million. The UK parliament has 12 political parties; the US Congress has two parties and a couple independents. If you desired to create an American centric discussion, perhaps you should have begun with "What America should do" not with "All democracies"
All genuine democracies employ a popular vote to elect its representatives to the legislature, except the US which deviates from that rule to employ a voting manipulation known as the Electoral College to elect a president. Then it brags about it being the Greatest Democracy on Earth, which is sheer hypocrisy ........
So you believe that if you do not have the right to vote, democracy should not in any way work for you? As it is in the United States, Congressmen still represent the disenfranchised. They may not be able to vote, but they are still constituents. I would certainly love the idea of California and New York losing dozens of Congressional representatives once illegal immigrants, felons, and children were no longer counted towards Congressional appropriation, forever ensuring that the GOP controlled Congress, but I'm pretty sure that'd piss off a lot of liberals.
In order to become a Prime Minister, you do not win a popular vote. The Parliament elects you as their leader in the EXACT SAME FASHION AS THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
Actually, you are right. Thanks for noting it. The vote is not exactly proportional, because there is an aspect of winner-take-all. But the number of seats per geographical area IS proportional. See how that happens here. Excerpt: So, THAT is from where the US got the idea of non-proportionality?
Read carefully the English. The PotUS is also a representative of the people as head of the Executive branch. The PotUS is NOT elected fairly and equitably in the US ... !
Their leaders are chosen by their parliaments. Who do you think you're fooling? Or maybe you're not trying to fool anyone and it's just ignorance.
More one-liner blah, blah, blah in a forum already rich with it. You'd be happier and less taxed intellectually on a Message Board ...
The US developed the Electoral College because at the time the Constitution was written the right to vote was largely restricted to wealthy landowners. Virginia, the most populous state at the time, required one to own 500 acres of arable farm land to be eligible for the franchise. No matter how much you attempt to rewrite history, it stays the same. Nothing to do with racism or slavery.
