USA a false democracy?

From here: The Electoral College’s Real Problem: It’s Biased Toward the Big Battlegrounds (22 March 2019)

A winner-take-all system within states can produce results counter to the majority for no high-minded reason at all. The vote isn't "rigged" but it is heavily distorted towards one political party rather than another.

Moreover, and far more fundamental, presume you vote for the loser in a presidential election. Your vote is dumped in the dust bin, and the vote (abracadabra!) is given to the winne. Meaning, in fact, that you did not vote at all.

Nothing is more dishonest or anti-American as finagling the vote for the presidency. And yet we'e been doing it for moire than two centuries.

Excerpt:

It is simply unfair, like so many other defects in our electoral-system - such as Gerrymandering of the popular-vote.

There is only one True Vote of our representatives to any elective office. And it is the pure and simple Popular-Vote. That, in fact, most evolved nations pursue except notably one.

Ours ...

 

A far greater danger is a corrupt media, as ours has become an existential threat, contrary to everything American, including the very purpose of a free press.

 

I wish we could get rid of the electoral college and elect President by popular vote, but it would require a Constitutional amendment to change it, which would require ratification by 3/4 of the states. That ain't going to happen. Of course, individual states could follow suit of Maine and Nebraska and divide their electoral votes. My concern with THAT is that it would open the door to gerrymandering within the states that do it.

 

The electoral college was a compromise between large and small colonies. Now that the smaller colonies had been tricked into the union by the promise of the elector-based process, the libs are trying to not hold their end of the bargain and change the rules. Par for the course.

Perhaps 25 electoral points could be added to the electoral college (making it 563) to be awarded to the winner of the popular vote. This should give at least some relevance to non-battle ground states and make things a tad more interesting... then again, I imagine a nation-wide popular vote recount if the election is close... and shudder.

 

You caught us! 21st century Democrats pulled a fast one on the 18th century colonies.

I agree on both these points. Imagine that!

 

The Constitution has been successfully amended some 25 times before and it will be amended again. Those things are certain, all the rest rife speculation.

 

Yep you can't change it without small population states revolting.

They have a right to have a say as much as any other state.

And remember that we don't actually have a national election for president, we have 50 individual ones.

Removing the electoral college essentially removes a major power from the states so at that point you might as well toss out all state laws and have the federal government take over.

Also, that was a demand by smaller colonies to ratify the constitution or they wouldn't have agreed to it.

 

JUNK THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!

And perhaps we could just junk the present EC-system and do what EVERY OTHER DEVELOPED DEMOCRACY ON THIS PLANET DOES?!?

A popular-vote for the Presidency-of-the-US across the nation managed according to strict national rules which do away with the wholly unfair Electoral College!

The winner-takes-all process is purely UNDEMOCRATIC and wholly disrespectful of each American's right-to-vote and have the vote counted thus determining who wins the presidency of the nation!

Why is that just above too difficult for Americans to understand? Because we have a very damaged education in the matter of American governance, that's why!

PS: The Canadian system of election was wholly borrowed from the British system, meaning that there is no Senate and simply a Parliament voted directly by citizens. It is then the party that wins that election that decides who becomes Prime Minister. Works like a charm! America could keep the Senate and junk the Electoral College but maintain the direct-election to the presidency!

 

WHERE AMERICA FAILS AS A "DEMOCRACY"

From here: The Failure of American Public Education

Excerpt:

This article is well worth the read for those who understand and thus desire that the future of the America's democracy is a matter of a correct education of our children. If we fail in that challenge, we have nobody to blame but ourselves for the consequences.

Let's not forget that the proper education of our children (from kindergarten to post-secondary education) is the key-cornerstone to both our democracy and our economic well-being ...

 

INTELLIGENT DISCUSSION

That depends upon what you read and from where your read it. Informing oneself is a highly specific ability. That is, more than agreeing with "one's opinion (Left, Middle or Right) factual information must have factual sources. Knowing how to find those sources is a "knack" that bonafide reporters learn and must apply.

Let's not blame the "media" if we are misinformed. There is PLENTY of information on the net - just be careful of its source.

For instance, I quote into this forum a lot from "the Guardian" because I judge its coverage to be correct and unbiased. But, I also know that one's PoV is typically based upon pertinent and valid information sources - or otherwise the reporter is pissing-into-the-wind.

It is not difficult to find "the source" that best reflects your opinion. It's not easy either. But it is a LOT BETTER quoting a competent-source than pissing-around with unsubstantiated hack-commentary found on the Internet.

Which has become the bane of intelligent discussion... !

 

Any change to the electoral college needs a constitutional amendment so it does little good to scream about it. There are something like 13 states that have 6 or fewer electoral votes and those senators and congress people will not support any amendment to end the EC.

You need a 2/3 vote of congress and senate and 60% of the state legislatures need to ratify. Smaller states will never support this.

 

Well put! It aint gonna be easy!

Especially in a context in which about half the population re-voted for Donald Dork! Who proved amply whilst in office that he is incompetent! What more proof of incompetence does the US need than a PotUS who was blind to the Covid-massacre that is killing fellow Yanks daily!

If you're really excited about a proper way to implement a Truly-Democratic nation and would like to live within one - then I suggest seriously that you go to Canada ....!

PS: The only negative thing about Canada: Brrrrrrrr! It gets cold up there!

 

Those who voted for Trump don't consider him incompetent. You couldn't come up with that knowledge by yourself.

 

Yes, 230+ years ago--a nation 1/100th the size of today. Maybe it's time for a change.

Rewriting history Trump style?

Egads.

 

Not in the Lower Mainland (greater Vancouver). It's like Seattle.

 

We're talking about the popular election of the President and Vice President. We still have the Senate.

More than 230 years ago when we had 1/100th the number of people.

Times change except for Republicans.

 

Republican states do high tech gerrymandering already.

Apportioning electors based on the popular vote would be a huge improvement.

For example, Trump was trying to create enough chaos to throw the election to Congress, where he could win. Doing what we do in Maine would fix some serious flaws in the EC.

 

The goal is not, nor ever has been, democracy. The goal is individual rights. Unlimited democracy threatens individual rights. Thats why we 'fail' at democracy... by design.

 

Agreed. They've perfected the art of cheating legally.

Absolutely, but there's no chance of passing an amendment like this in your lifetime (and I'm assuming you're younger than my 66 years).

Maybe, but keep in mind the state legislators (already a product of partisan gerrymandering) would be able to gerrymander the electoral vote subdivisions. This could make it even worse.

 

[QUOTE="Asherah, post: 1072272278, member: 75351"


Absolutely, but there's no chance of passing an amendment like this in your lifetime (and I'm assuming you're younger than my 66 years).


[/QUOTE]

I'm 69. You know the rule, if you're 5 seconds younger, you're the kid

We did it as a state thing, it wasn't that big a deal.

 

Are you in Maine?

 

Yes.

 

The United States, at any moment in time of its history, has never been a Democracy nor aspired to be any form or variation of a Democracy. In fact, the legislative history clearly demonstrates a strong antipathy for any form or attempt at "democracy" as an unstable quasi government.

Another fact is that without the EC, the Constitution would have never been ratified. A strong, related opinion is that any material changes to the EC would instantly cause the END of the United States. As others point out, and the same repetitive, dogmatic posters who make these types of threads over and over and over and over ignore over and over, the several states of the U.S. WOULD NEVER TOLERATE A SYSTEM WHERE POPULATION ALONE DETERMINED LEADERSHIP OR NATIONAL ELECTIONS.

The United States is, as a matter of irrefutable, Constitutional, legislative and other historical fact, a Constitutional Republic.

 

Why do you keep saying the U.S. is a Democracy? It's not! It is a Constitutional Republic.