Gosh. 30 mistakes. I guess it is true by declaration then: “Attempts to . . . debate me are futile.”
Gairloch
Hardly. I didn’t invent the rules of logic. I just used them to show that your fallacies of distraction were spurious. If you have reasonable points then by all means, bring them forth. But enough with the weaseling.
“I didn’t invent the rules of logic. I just used them to show that your fallacies of distraction were spurious.”
Ah. Had I known we were adhering strictly to rules of logical argument . . . .
Then let us begin at the beginning, as it were . . .
“It is thought impossible to move to a popular vote here in America because of the difficulty in amending our Constitution.” This opening would begin the logical missteps with the Fallacy of Presupposition compounded with several Fallacies of Generalization, the most prominent being the Fallacy of the False Alternative. It is ‘”thought impossible” by whom, precisely? And what evidence or argument is offered to support the view that “amending our Constitution” is an alternative at all when the argument subsequent is that no such amendment is required? In terms of logic, this statement poses an invented proposition and a fictitious answer to that proposition.
“So all we need do is convince enough of the “bigger” states to give their electoral votes not to the person who gets the most votes in their state but by the one who wins the most votes in the entire nation.” This, as I recall, was the heart of the opening argument. This would be a Fallacy of the Consequent, among others too numerous to mention. “So all we need do,” is by itself a Fallacy of Simplifying, and no method of “convincing,” is even opened in the discussion, nor is any argument offered as to any logical or emotional reasoning that might be employed to “convince” the “bigger” States to “give” their electoral votes in opposition to the voters of the State. This lack of connecting argument and intelligent or plausible evidence to support that argument opens all subsequent argument to the Fallacy of Questionable Premises.
Lest the original point be lost, it is here reinforced, “And yes, the plan is for the “big” states all to give thier electoral votes to a single candidate, the winner of the popular vote.”
In answer to a perfectly logical question concerning just who is going to be “convincing” electors to vote against their own constituencies, we are offered the following: ““We” are those who believe in democracy and equality. “We” are those who don’t believe that some Americans deserve more say in who governs our nation than others. In short “we” are the good guys.” We have here the Fallacy of the Appeal to Feelings in ten different cloaks including the Fallacy of Emotive Language (implying strongly that anyone in opposition cannot, therefore, be one of the “good guys”), and once again the argument employs the Fallacy of Presupposition, stating that some Americans do, in fact, have more say in “who governs our nation than others” without offering a word of evidence to support the contention.
“Obviously as a nation we need to put more effort into holding fair and reliable elections . . .” demonstrates fallacious logic on a dozen levels – nothing is obvious in a purely logical argument, and lacking evidence that elections as currently held are unfair or unreliable the statement is irresponsible. No such evidence is offered but merely asserted, adding the Fallacy of Authority with the twist of the writer offering his or herself as the sole authority to be believed.
“The EC doesn’t protect against the possibility of regional control; it creates it.” Asserted but not demonstrated. Ergo, again, inadmissible in a logical argument.
“. . . how about you actually produce some arguments to support your bald assertions that my plan would “subvert democracy” or amounts to “a giant vote-rigging scheme”?” This one is the classics around these parts, and is known as the Fallacy of Shifting the Burden of Proof, in which the writer need not defend a weak intellectual or logical position, choosing instead to challenge opponents to defend their questions, thus relieving the writer of the responsibility for arguing for their own position in favor of arguing against opposing views.
Another fine example of the same follows immediately, and permeates the balance of the thread: Question: “Do you call for the abolishment of the Electoral College at every presidential election, or only when the election is contentious and the Electoral College does its job as intended, but you don’t like the outcome?” Answer: “We are not at a presidential election right now. QED If logic isn’t good enough a search of this forum could also answer your question.” Logic? What logic? Assertion, again, is a method of rhetorical manipulation, but it is not logic, is not proof, is not science, and it does not make a writer’s argument stronger.
I could continue dissecting this thread, in view of pure logic, for another ten pages easily, and nearly exhaust the list of Logical Fallacies employed by the writer in the process. But, for the sake of argument, let us just reiterate: “I didn’t invent the rules of logic.”
Q.E.D. Nor take much notice of them, either, it appears.
Gairloch
We aren’t. This is freeform debate. You are free to use whatever epistimology or rhetoric you wish, within the forum guidelines of course. Personally, I find the forms of formal debate to cumbersome for this forum. I don’t take the time to define all of my terms or lay out my assumptions or even cite all of my assertions and I am just plain not organized enough to make sure all of my arguments pertain to the main point as well as the subpoint. If anyone disagrees they are free to challenge me on this and I am willing to discuss it. I have found that this style works so long as people debate honestly. I don’t deny that I pepper my arguments with rhetoric but I don’t depend my points upon it.
If you have reason to believe my arguments or assumptions are flawed then by all means, post away. I feel they are reasonable and am prepared to defend them. A more careful rereading of this thread will clear up most of your misconceptions and you can find some good discussion about why amending the Constitution to abolish the EC is so unlikely in this thread particularly by Lemur866. I guess that only leaves the logic of my dismissal of Duckster’s question. S/he basically asked if I opposed the EC only during elections where I didn’t like the outcome. I don’t see how my logic escapes you. We aren’t holding an election right now yet here I am arguing against the EC. Therefor it is plain that I don’t only oppose the EC when it produces an outcome I don’t like.
“I guess that only leaves the logic of my dismissal of Duckster’s question. S/he basically asked if I opposed the EC only during elections where I didn’t like the outcome. I don’t see how my logic escapes you. We aren’t holding an election right now yet here I am arguing against the EC. Therefor it is plain that I don’t only oppose the EC when it produces an outcome I don’t like.”
Sigh. I don’t recall the question, as posed, using the inserted word “during.” This one is a variation on the classic Fallacy of the Straw Man, in which an opponent’s question is first distorted, then answered. Through this misuse of logic the question, the actual question, can be totally avoided, as it was in this case.
And no, that by no means leaves only the “logic” of the dismissal of Duckster’s question.
I might point out that it was the same writer who now says, “Personally, I find the forms of formal debate to cumbersome for this forum. I don’t take the time to define all of my terms or lay out my assumptions or even cite all of my assertions and I am just plain not organized enough to make sure all of my arguments pertain to the main point as well as the subpoint,” who also just previous to that rationalization asserted, “I didn’t invent the rules of logic. I just used them to show that your fallacies of distraction were spurious.”
So which is it? Logic, applied, or disorganized thoughts of the moment?
Aside from the fact that you have characterized your thirty point refutation of the effectiveness of education and anger management skills as an exercise in the employment of logic, (written clearly as a use of the rules of logic to point out “fallacies of distraction”), and aside from the fact that not a whit of actual logic was employed in the argument from the first sentence forward, and even taking into account the statement that you find the forms of formal debate too cumbersome to actually employ in your writing and arguments – a reasonable person might still ask, just as we asked how the race card was suddenly drawn from the deck, how the topic of ‘logic’ came to arise by way of refutation when the idea of ‘logic’ is then immediately dismissed as ‘too cumbersome’ for the writer? Applying a standard to others while ignoring it oneself is also well regarded as a form of argument qualifying one’s thoughts for immediate dismissal.
A connected argument put forward through a series of demonstrable assertions would not generally include such statements as, “This argument has gotten convoluted. Originally it was about the effects of local campaigning.” Originally, it was about nothing of the sort. Nor would such an argument put forth the contention that, “The EC has delivered that fair vote exactly 0 times in our history,” by way of proving an assertion by simply restating the assertion. ‘Logic,’ as a theme, arises again quickly in the, “This is “We had to destroy the village to save it” logic. The system failed to deliever a fair vote, as always,” statement. This response did not address the point made at all, but couched the dismissal and deflection in language that made the writer claim to be employing ‘logic’ superior to that of the opponent.
Making accusations that others are “weaseling” might be difficult to resolve, under the circumstances.
There may be many valid reasons to question the validity and effectiveness of the Electoral College, and there may be any number of genuine arguments both for and against the EC, but as a personal aside I might wonder if intellectual rigor might be a better form of having that discussion than simply asserting a ‘solution’ to a ‘problem’ that has not been adequately demonstrated to be a real problem at all, then dismissing objections out of hand and characterizing that dismissal as “logic.” Change is by no means a bad thing, but I’d suggest that a fundamental change aimed at solving problems that may not actually exist might require a bit more in the way of thought than a simple assertion of a scheme that does truly amount, on its face, to be election rigging in favor of one viewpoint at the expense of all others. Logic, you see, is not a toy, nor is it a weapon held only by one for selective use in squelching opposition.
If the contention is that the EC is fundamentally unfair to the average voter, which it seems the contention, in a roundabout way, might be, then get to the point – why is it unfair both to the white man in North Dakota and the black woman in Los Angeles? Convince me, instead of trying to badger us into believing through repetition of unsupported assertions.
Gairloch
I cannot convince you of anything you don’t wish to be convinced of. I have backed up my assertions but I can not prevent you from pretending that I haven’t. No matter what I say you don’t have to admit I am right. You can keep weaseling to your heart’s content. Lets take a look at an example.
In fact it was. This is an argument between Ravenman and myself about the steel tariff issue. My very next sentence after the one you quoted was " You offered the steel tariff as an example of what a state bought for its electoral votes." Here is what he said when introducing the example:
He is clearly talking about local campaigning and that was the original focus of the argument. And yet you deny that is true.
Here’s a more direct example: I state that I find the formal forms of logic too cumbersome for GD. You distort that to claim that I find any logic too cumbersome. That is plain misrepresentation.
Another example: You claim that my assertion that “The EC has delivered that fair vote exactly 0 times in our history,” was unsupported, a mere restatement. Yet just before I said that I had pointed out in detail exactly how and why the EC never delivers a fair vote:
You ignore my argument and then try to claim that "If the contention is that the EC is fundamentally unfair to the average voter, which it seems the contention, in a roundabout way, might be, then get to the point ".
Obviously I have gotten to the point but I can’t force you to admit the obvious. All I can do is point out again and again that you are a weasel. As you continue to post you simply give me more examples of your dishonesty. Now if you don’t have the sense to quit while you are behind then by all means keep posting because this is too easy. I’ve got free time and can go on pointing out how foolish you are acting all day long.
I’m back at last! 
It’s been a rough month… and now it’s late at night and I’m crabby. C’est la vie.
Anyway, about that paper by the guys at Columbia and Caltech:
The authors set up a strawman argument - they deliberately focus on a weak argument made by supporters of a weak index and then extrapolate this to cover all power indices. They start by saying (pg 2) that measures of voting power make assumptions about voting behavior. This is not true. Many indices (like Shapley’s) don’t assume anything about voting behavior, they simply start with a definition of political fairness and distribute the number of votes to fit that definition.
The authors make loosely worded statements like (pg 2) “…the counterintuitive result that, in a proportional voting system, voters in large districts tend to have disproportionate power.” This is a mischaracterization; the first author is a statistician and should know better. It’s fairly obvious that under one-person-one-vote, each person’s vote counts equally. What power indices tell us is something different - it is that collectively, the voters of a large district have a disproportionately large say in the outcome of the election. As others have pointed out in this thread, if everyone in the nation’s 4 or 5 largest cities were to band together and vote for a single candidate, that candidate would likely win a national election under one-person-one-vote. This would have the same effect as disenfranchising everyone else in the country.
Of course, such large-scale collusion is unlikely; however, it is silly to pretend that people’s voting behavior is not to some extent influenced by geography. We know that Vermont is liberal, that New Hampshire is libertarian, and that Texas is conservative. The EC as set up ensures that to win, a candidate’s support must be broad as well as deep; i.e. the candidate should obtain majorities among a large number of geographically dispersed groups of people. The authors never explain why they think this is bad. (This is the fundamental difference between the EC and a simple-majority vote: the latter simply requires that you persuade a large number of people whereas the former requires you to persuade large numbers of many different kinds of people.)
Further, the authors argue (bottom of pg 2) that it is somehow desirable to design voting schemes based on observed voter behavior or empirical data on voting trends. Think for a minute how profoundly unfair that is. It means that such a voting scheme would be based not on some fundamental notion of what is fair but simply designed to yield a “desirable” (to whom? a panel of academicians?) outcome. Essentially, the authors propose simply moving the goalposts until the voters get it right.
Section 2 is based on the premise that (top of page 4) “The Banzhaf index and related measures … can all be interpreted in terms of probability models.” This is technically true but misleading. Specifically, just because models can be interpreted this way does not mean that they assume certain probabilistic patterns. Many indices can be explained in terms of probability models, but their design is not based in any way on such models. To use an analogy, the authors’ argument is similar to the following:
[ul]
[li] Astronomers study the solar system[/li]
[li] Science fair exhibits depicting astronomical models of the solar system often use “planets” made out of styrofoam.[/li]
[li] The real planets are obviously not made out of styrofoam.[/li]
[li] Therefore, all astronomers are poopy-heads who don’t know what they are doing.[/li][/ul]
The rest of the equations and symbols are window dressing.
Sections 3 and 4 focus on a statement by Banzhaf about the Banzhaf index. As I have said earlier, the Banzhaf index is one kind of index, and not a particularly good one. Further, Banzhaf’s arguments for it are not, in my opinion, particularly compelling. This may be why the authors choose to pick on this index, conveniently ignoring the alternatives. Thus these two sections may demonstrate why Banzhaf’s argument regarding his index was wrong; they do not say anything about whether the authors’ argument is right.
Section 5 continues in this distressing vein - now the authors talk about how elections must be redesigned so that some curves can fit some data points plotted from voter behavior in previous elections. Again, it is not clear why this is good or fair. Indeed, this is a red flag - in my opinion, your definition of what constitutes a fair election system should not depend on how people voted in the last election (or in the last ten elections).
Section 6 is more of the same.
In sum,
[list=1]
[li]The authors never define what they are setting out to do. As a result, they end up using the inherent vagueness of terms like “fairness” and “power” to present an ever-changing argument that manages to sound authoritative without in fact saying anything specific.[/li]
[li]They heap ridicule on one particular voting index (Banzhaf) and leap to the conclusion that all indices must therefore be bad.[/li]
[li]Even in doing this, they never quite prove that the Banzhaf index is bad for any reason because they never define their notion of goodness (or fairness). Instead, they dissect a couple of overblown statements by individuals regarding these indices and only show that these statements are wrong.[/li]
[li]And finally, my pet peeve - they use a bunch of meaningless math and equations to convey an air of authority.[/li][/list=1]
So here’s what I would like to see in a serious argument for changing the EC:
[list=a]
[li] First, define your aim. Precisely. Tell us what you think an election is supposed to achieve. (“Equalize the impact of each voter on the election outcome” is an acceptable definition; “achieve socio-political fairness” and “save the northern aardvark” are not.)[/li]
[li] Explain why the EC does not achieve the aim in (a).[/li]
[li] Define what means you are willing to use. If amending the Constitution is not an option, then you are not allowed to cavil at any perceived inadequacies of the same. Your solution must then follow the letter and spirit of the Constitution.[/li]
[li] Define your proposed replacement for the EC.[/li]
[li] Explain why your scheme achieves the aim you set out in (a).[/li][/list=a]
The OP did (d) and partially (b) and (c). Responses have focused on (a) and (e) and on ambiguities in (b). This might be why the discussion is going nowhere. For comparison, the above paper tries to do (b) and (d) without doing (a) or (c) or (e).
Now I must offer my apologies for not replying promptly. We have been on our annual pilgrimage to the beach and I am just now getting caught up here.
I will keep in mind your objections to the work of Gelman, Katz, and Bafumi. To repeat, I don’t grasp the Shapely value. I can understand intellectually how only a single value could satisfy its conditions but I can’t relate those conditions to anything I can comprehend as “fair”. I also remain troubled by the talk of states and not people. If the Shapely value only relates to entire election districts and not the individuals in them then I don’t see how it can be meaningful to any consideration of fairness or equality for people.
I am a democrat. Notice the small “d”. I mean that I am for democracy. I accept that the people can’t govern directly and must of necessity select representatives to do so. I understand that this means that there can be no absolute equality: a representative has more power than a regular citizen. I accept that there are practical limitations on equality. My problem with the Electoral College is that no one can justify to me its deviations from democracy. I feel the same way about our constitution. While subsequent changes have ameliorating many of its original problems in my view it remains fundamentally flawed. I have no loyalty to it. I want it gone and I’m not picky about how. I’ve considered general renunciation, convention of the states, diplomacy, intervention by a more rational spacefaring species, basically anything short of violence. So I have no personal problem with amendment. The problem with amendments is that they are so difficult to enact. Having studied the history I know that this is not accidental. The system was designed purposely to limit rule by the majority. To put it another way the spirit of the Constitution is to permit the few to deny the many control of their own government.
Clearly then I am not about to argue that my plan fits into that mold. But that’s not to say that my plan is unconstitutional. It’s not. The Constitution leaves to each state to decide how to assign its electors. I am merely proposing that a state look beyond its own borders and consider the greater good when making that decision. Nor is this a mature plan. I just thought it up and started posting. When pointing out the problems with the Electoral College I compare it to a popular vote because that’s the easiest way to see why it is unfair. It is my experience that the proponents of the EC will strongly resist any consideration of the effects on individual voters because, whether they realize it consciously or not, if they do their facile rationalizations will crumble. So I tend to hold up a popular vote as a counterexample. That does not mean that given my choice I would choose a direct vote. It seems to me that the Canadians and the Brits are on to something with having the head of the government chosen by the legislature and perhaps when it is all said and done I will end up prefering our president chosen by Congress somehow. At this point I don’t know. What I am arguing here is that given the existence of the Electoral College the best strategy to achieve fairness in electing a president is to persuade individual states to assign their electors based on who is the most popular candidate amongst all Americans and not just those residing in one particular state.
I’ll take a stab at giving you something you might consider a serious argument for changing the EC.
a: The purpose of an election of a leader is to elect that leader. Assuming you are going to hold such an election I assert that every member of the body deserves an equal say in that decision, barring practical considerations.
b: The EC does not achieve that equality. At the end of my last post I quoted myself explaining the three main ways that the EC perverts equality.
c: I am willing to use almost any means necessary to end this perversion.
d: I have offered a plan to fix the problems by effectively moving to a popular vote. If it is easier for you to deal with you might consider considering it as an amendment to the Constitution implementing a direct vote rather than a scheme to manufacture the outcome of a popular vote within the current set up. Either way it solves the problems. The solution itself is simple: count all the votes and declare the person with the biggest pile the winner.
e: Since all votes are counted then they are all equal.
I hope that is clear enough. Now I’m going to clear up some of your misunderstandings.
Not so. Recently here in Pennsylvania Ed Rendell was elected governor because he got more votes than anyone else. Did that mean that everyone who didn’t vote for him was disenfranchised? Of course not. They had their say but got outvoted. It is the same in your example. No one is denied an equal say. Some folks just got beat is all. They lost fair and square and have nothing to complain about.
We know that not everyone in Vermont is liberal and that not everyone in Texas is conservative. 41% of Vermonters cast their ballots for George Bush and 38% of Tejanos cast theirs for Al Gore. Yet these minorities were silenced. All of the electoral power of Texas went to Bush and all of the electoral power of Vermont went to Gore. It is one thing to make generalizations about states. It is quite another to use those generalizations to justify disenfranchising millions of people.
People keep saying this and I keep pointing out that it just ain’t so. Remember that my plan can work with as few as eleven states. If the eleven largest states all cast their electoral votes for a single candidate he would win. No matter what. If we assume slim victories with low voter turnout in those states and overwhelming defeat with high turnout in the rest of the states then we can find a candidate winning the election with the support of a mere 25% of the electorate or even less. Carrying it to the extreme ( though this is no more likely than your example of a unanimous vote in a handful of metropolises ) if only one person voted in each of the largest states then under the Electoral College as it stands today eleven people could outvote millions. Eleven out of 100 million. That’s hardly “broad and deep” now is it?
Now I get to complain about “inherent vagueness”. What exactly do you mean by “different kinds of people” and why would you assume that geography is the determining factor? And don’t forget that I have already shown how the EC benefits white people at the expense of others so if you care to argue that the EC somehow promotes diversity then that is the place to start.
In regards to having the president elected by Congress, I would view this move as essentially making the executive branch of government an extension of Congress. The plans for our country lay out explicit plans for a government divided into three parts, one of which is executive.
I agree with changing from the current EC system. I would favor a one vote per district system. I don't see how the fact that the two states to do this have never split their votes makes this a bad system. Clearly if a larger state were to adopt this system, such a uniform casting of votes would not continue.
The one vote per district also would avoid a repeat of 2000 where one state or even one district can throw off the results for the entire country. This would have amounted to only one vote out of over 500 and would not have mattered as much. Of course the downside is that you could end up with 100 or so separate "Pam Beach" situations in a close election.
Finally, I'm sure someone has said it, but we are a Republic, not a direct Democracy, which is the reason why a more electoral type system rather than a direct vote for president is favorable in my mind.This is getting a little tedious, isn’t it? All this waffling about how this system or that system is better able to "represent " the “people” and its wishes.
Even a cursory reading of the Federalist Papers would show that the last thing the framers wanted was the people interfering in how the government was run and passed legislation.
Nearly all countries with electoral systems have observed the principle of shutting out, as far as possible, representatives of the “people” from any meaningful participation in the governmental process. Consequently, you will find that there are no democracies on this planet. (Switzerland comes the closest, but even that does not come very close).
All countries that allow periodic and reasonably honest elections are “constitutional republics”, not democracies, and should be more accurately described as “elective dictatorships”.
The dictatorship may follow the “Village Headman” model adopted by many countries in North and South America, or the “Council of Village Elders” model followed by most European countries.
In neither system do the people have any plausible form of representation or any say in the sometimes huge number of laws that are passed, quite often contrary to the wishes of the vast majority of the adult population. Nor do the people have any significant power to curb the activities of the servants of those in charge of the political process and system, ie. the elected dictators.
People who live in elective dictatorships who think they are represented could just as easily be convinced that the divine right of kings makes sense.
I believe it would probably be nice to live in a system where the representatives of the people have a significant say in the governmental process, but no country in recent history has ever contemplated taking such a risk.
Actually no one had yet felt the need to point out that obvious fact. In this thread at least. Ever the optimist I’m assuming that’s because everyone else realized it was pointless because no matter if the President is chosen by electoral college, Congress, or popular vote we remain a Republic.
The idea of dividing up the electoral votes according to congressional districts, however, has been brought up. It was examined and discarded. It would not prevent a handlful of fraudulent votes from changing the outcome of an election. Whether parcelled up into states or a congressional districts any time you divide the electorate you create the possibility of compounding a small error into a major one when all of a disrict’s electoral power is given to the wrong candidate. If the electorate is undivided then any mistaken votes can only prejudice themselves, not an entire district of votes. Also as I pointed out a district plan would raise the stakes of the gerrymandering game. Some have warned against recent debacle Texas lest it open a whole new chapter in American politics where a state is redistricted every time its government changes hand instead of every ten years. If we added the incentive to control the White House as well as the House I would think that we could pretty much count on it. Since it creates even more headaches without solving any of the current problems of the Electoral College I’m unsurprised that no one seems eager to respond to my criticism of this superficial idea.
I’m going to have to drop out of this discussion now. Due to various family and health developments I’m finding it hard to care too deeply about the EC at this point. I’ll just say a couple of things on my way out the door.
2sense, I think we’re more or less at an impasse. I think we’re more or less repeating ourselves at this point, so maybe we can just agree to disagree? However, I will say this much about your “three reasons EC is unfair”:
So the minority loses. Big deal. It seems to me that your problem is not with the EC per se, but with the distribution of EC votes. What if the EC votes were distributed according to population (this is essentially what your plan tries to approximate)? It appears that you would not have a problem in that case. Put another way, it’s not the principle of the EC that bothers you, it’s the details.
Now regarding those details, I think that the current setup is a reasonable one. You don’t. We each have our reasons. I don’t pretend to know who’s right.
Frankly, I don’t. Alaska is a huge, sparsely populated state. It has special concerns that are shared by no other state. Michigan, on the other hand, has many things in common with a number of other states - Detroit has urban issues similar to those of, say, Philadelphia, and the farm sector is very much like the farm sector of any other midwestern state.
It’s things like this that make the EC attractive to me. By giving a little extra voice to vital but underpopulated states, it makes sure that their concerns aren’t ignored. Of course, every president has to court CA, TX, NY and FL. The EC ensures they also listen to AK, WY and NM.
And this has to do with the EC how? First, nothing says we can’t give EC votes to Puerto Rico, Guam, etc. Secondly and more seriously, Puerto Rico residents pay basically no federal income taxes to the US government. In return, they get no say in electing a president. That’s the deal the US has with the insular possessions, and it doesn’t seem particularly unfair to me.
IUHomer and others advocating one vote per district, do you really want to make the presidential election look like that for the House of Representatives, where gerrymandering by the states ensures that only a handful of seats are ever competitive? As 2sense pointed out, this would only make things worse.
Alan Owes Bess - dude, chill with the rhetoric.
Huh? Representatives of the people (think Congress) have no meaningful participation in government? Actually, under the US system, Congress is in many ways more powerful than the President. The function of the executive is to implement the laws made by the legislature; in a very real sense, Congress tells POTUS what to do.
Oh and about direct democracies, take a look at Denmark. They’ve traditionally done almost everything by referendum. Of course, they have a population a little over half that of New York City, and a quarter of them live in Copenhagen, so maybe that makes it easier.
And this
simply makes no sense at all. I don’t know if there’s any possible system of government (theoretical or practical) that would fit your definition of democracy.