So you think that the electoral college is good because it makes it impossible to have any truly democratic country? Why the fuck would we protect the minority from the majority... there is a reason the minority doesnt win, because THEY ARE THE MINORITY... and the majority wins, but not in america... because we are too ass backwards electoral college can go to hell, fuck it.
I couldn't disagree more. We have to be careful as to not oppress the minority. They need a voice too. They would never be heard if we didn't give them the chance.
We are a representative republic, not truly democratic. Thankfully we dont have a truly democratic country. because an overbearing majority is the worst form of tyranny?
haha Wow you sound really stupid. A democracy is the worst form of tyranny? You are so glad you live in a republic? I think you just made me throw up a little.
Well if it is weighted and fair and all that, then changing to a direct election would not make any difference now would it? So what are you saying, screw what the majority wants? If it is truly for the people, then the majority should rightfully win, as that is THE MAJORITY!
i take it you've never read any of the federalist papers. Here is a nice quote from a guy called Alexander Hamilton, he was a founding father of this republic. "It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure." Number 51 if you care to read all of it. An overbearing majority is a tyranny..not democracy..
there has been what, 2 times in our history that the person who won the popular vote didnt win the electoral college? I dont think the electoral college is to blame for 2000..i think it was the failure of us.
How so? How is it a tyranny? It is how democracy works! It goes according to the will of the people.... The will being what the majority is for... If everything went the way the minority wanted it, THAT would be a tyranny.... How would you define tyranny? I'd define it as when the few, or one, have power over the many...
here is a quote from federalist 51 "In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradnally induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful. It can be little doubted that if the State of Rhode Island was separated from the Confederacy and left to itself, the insecurity of rights under the popular form of government within such narrow limits would be displayed by such reiterated oppressions of factious majorities that some power altogether independent of the people would soon be called for by the voice of the very factions whose misrule had proved the necessity of it. In the extended republic of the United States, and among the great variety of interests, parties, and sects which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place on any other principles than those of justice and the general good; whilst there being thus less danger to a minor from the will of a major party, there must be less pretext, also, to provide for the security of the former, by introducing into the government a will not dependent on the latter, or, in other words, a will independent of the society itself. It is no less certain than it is important, notwithstanding the contrary opinions which have been entertained, that the larger the society, provided it lie within a practical sphere, the more duly capable it will be of self-government." You are taking it completely wrong. No one is saying that the minority should rule the majority. I'm saying the majority shouldnt have absolute POWER. THAT is tyranny.
surely you are not going to deny that the federalists had a HUGE impact on america? Federalism has ruled america since the industrial age..we are no longer just a grouping of states..but we have a supremely strong federal government.
America has had a lot of influences in it that were completely WRONG... just because something influences america doesnt make it correct or right... america is one fucked up country.
No one said the majority have absolute power, merely the majority of it! Besides I'm not talking in terms of strength or some shit like that, but in population.... You seem to like it how it is, as it gives your home state power improportionate with it's population...
uh... vermont has 3 electral votes....california has like 35....how is it inappropriate? Edit: unless you mean in the senate..which i'd agree..if we go by proportion of population..than the senate is flawed big tiem. I'm saying, if we do away with the electoral college..there is no reason to go to rural areas to campaign..hit the big cities and you can take the majority
What's wrong with that, that is where the majority is. Not to mention, with the internet anyone who wishes to can easily stay informed.
because it causes factions and divides the country. The rights of the minority must be respected. If you want a direct democracy, go look at athens or the roman republic and see how well those worked.