View Single Post
  #64  
Old 08-23-2019, 10:51 AM
Ají de Gallina's Avatar
Ají de Gallina is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lima, Perú
Posts: 4,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
I didn't think anybody actually said this in real life. Mostly because it's absolutely not true.

The U.S. doesn't meet the definition of classical democracies. So what? Words change their meaning and accrue new ones all the time. The U.S. begat a new definition of democracy. It is now the dictionary definition of what a democracy is. When you need to point at something called a democracy the U.S. is what you point at.

Can one also call it a republic? Sure. Totally accurately, too, given the modern definition of a republic.

Both, not one or the other.
It means that it's a collection of states which have all the rights except those specifically given to the federal government. That's the difference as it is used.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Sure, and counting slaves as 3/5ths of a person was a feature, not a bug at the time the Constitution was written. That doesn’t mean such “features” are eternal.

The 3/5 was to take power away from slaveowners and to actually make ONE country out of the colonies. It was a compromise.
Definitely, change the EC if it is not right, but the way it Works. IT was made specifically to give a greater proportional vote to smaller states.

Quote:
That makes no sense. Let’s say 1,500 people work on a large building, but one person puts on the finishing touch. That doesn’t negate the work of the other 1,499 people. Same with elections.

One of them was the Lead Architect. Her contribution is much more important than Jane's just pouring cement.

Quote:
That first phrase is meaningless and only intended to make some citizens better than others. The second is untrue, as you are arguing that some voters should have 1.25 votes, and others 0.89 votes, based on whether they like city life or prefer country living. That’s absurd and indefensible.
As I said, the made it with that express intention. That's how they made smaller, less populous states, want to be part of the compact.

Quote:
So you DON’T believe in one person, one vote.
I, personally, sure I do.
The EC as it was set for the puropse it was set, not quite.


Quote:
When the person with fewer votes gets into office twice within a single generation, that can’t be called strong or stable. That’s broken and fucked up.
In the US electoral system, the total number of votes is irrelevant. There is no such thing, legally, as "popular vote."

And, yes, a system with no coups, no interruptions of civil governemt, with the same constitution for 240 years, it is stable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
"A few cities on both coasts" determining the outcome of an election is quite an overstatement. The flipside is to say that a few farmers in a giant field should have an advantage.
Cities. Yeah, lots of people live there. Stunning news.
It's abit too much to say like that, but sure. The whole puropse of the EC is an uneven distribution of votes and population so as to not turn states into meaningless part of the election. Should the US go to simple popular vote? Maybe, I don't know. What's clear is that, states should not by simple law overturn the clear intent of the constitution; even when said constitution is wrong.