Why do we vote for a single person to run out country? I don't understand why their personal opinions matter more than the opinions of The People. Wouldn't the wiser course of action be to vote on the individual issues and not the "lesser of two evils"? What if instead we stopped electing individual people and start electing the ideas of our nation.
How can we really be a great nation if we keep back stepping with every election?
(Not an Anti-Trump rant, btw)
Because people are retarded and their opinions are easily swayed by others who are good at manipulating.
You could easily make people vote for unfavorable things for them if you'd just force your opinion through media and the internet
>Why do we vote for a single person to run out country?
You don't?
Jesus fucking christ, do you have to have a Turk like me tell you that you also vote for Senate positions to run Congress and House of Representatives, that will be the deciding factor all of the Presidents legislations.
Which fortunately for Mr.Trump are both under Republican control after the ass-ravaging the DNC felt.
Never elect women as political leaders, kids.
>what is a representative democracy
I'm not referring to the bureaucracy. People vote for the president because they agree with 5/7 of what he/she stands for. No one actually votes on the issues. Sure, congress and the senate are there to make sure the president doesn't do whatever they want. When's the last time you voted for abortion laws, healthcare issues, etc individually and not based on who was in office.
Amerians are not Swiss they are impulsive morons that would destroy the country in an absolute democracy as these riots show.
Wait, people are actually rioting after this """"democratically"""" hosted election?
Yes the left wing is utterly deranged and should be instititionalized.
Do you think hardcore Republicans and Rednecks wouldve just accepeted Clinton ?
Its just some college kids crying,itll be over within a couple of weeks.
If you mean the DNC,youre right. They only have themselves to blame.
Representatives should be selected by lot. All you have to do to qualify is be over 18, be an American citizen with no criminal record or illness, mental or physical, that could prevent you from running the country to the best of your ability.
Then they elect the President out of their number.
It would be a true, pure democracy.
No even adults with jobs are crying and throwing bitch fits over Trump, alot of left leaning people are insane thats why they cant be reasoned with and need to be removed from society.
Most democracies don't elect a supreme leader directly, especially the freest ones. The American system of directly electing one person with enormous power over every other elected official is completely alien to most other democracies.
For example under the Westminster system (England, Australia, etc.) people only vote for their local representative who then represents them in parliament. None of these representatives (ministers) have any more power than any other, they all get a single vote. There's nobody above them that can veto them.
There's a Prime Minister, but he or she is just another minister with no more power than any other (they just happen to be the leader of the party with the most ministers in parliament). They only represent their electorate, just like every other minister does theirs. The Australian Constitution, for example, doesn't even mention anything about a Prime Minister.
Also pic related.
The POTUS doesn't run the country alone. POTUS has more power than most other presidents because he doesn't share executive power with a prime minister, and forms his own cabinet that under as much influence from the parliament (legislative).
The American bicameral legislature has more than enough check and balances and thus power over how the country is run internally (and to an extent foreign affairs, but the approval needed to declare war is sometimes ignored).
Not even holding both houses is guarantee that Trump can just pass anything he wants, there are always groups within the party. And in the end there's the supreme court.
>Then they elect the President out of their number.
>true, pure democracy
>indirect elections
>closer to democracy
The 3rd French republic called.
Also, OP the US isn't some Swiss canton to be able to practice direct democracy.
She (and Soros) lost it. Deal with it.
>removed from society
hi hans-herman hoppe
Liberals are human cancer all they do is make problems rather than solve them, they all need to be killed.
I just hope libs learn to drop the socks, "lets Condescend the biggotry out of people angle."
Seriously, /pol/ and lefty need to team up and get THAT word around, that socjus lost them the election.
Otherwise the far left is just gonna use Trump as a bug strawman to validate their beliefs and victim complexes.
>4. Please do not start threads about events taking place less than 25 years ago.
Ultimately, even democracies do not work democratically. The masses elect the leader, but then he APPOINTS his cabinet, etc., which in turn appoint their inferiors, all the way down to the day-to-day running of the most insignificant government agency. For a "democracy" to really function democratically, the masses would have to be consulted on every move that happens; you'd need a plebiscite for every budgetary measure, every foreign action, every hiring and firing of the most insignificant civil servant, at which point the leader would be superfluous, since all his moves would have been made for him. It is precisely due to the fact that all his moves are not made for him, i.e. because he autarchically, tyrannically, unilaterally makes at least some moves, that he is necessary — it is precisely this tyranical dimension of his that one praises when one praises a leader as a "good leader", i.e. a good tyrant. — Representative democracy, then, is not democracy at all, except in the most tenuous sense of the word, and it is for this reason that it is not a complete disaster — as it would be if the masses were asked to vote on everything. It still is a disaster, of course (because the most important decision, the identity of the supreme leader, is indeed decided by the masses), but precisely to this small degree of tyranny allowed, and even actively encouraged, not a complete one.
funny how people start questioning democracy and other political institutions when their candidates loses.
They have valid reason to do so on the count Hillary won the popular vote.
>why do we vote for a single person to run our country.
>single person
What the fuck are you smoking
but the popular vote doesnt matter in america, only the electoral college and again people question it once they lose. similar to brexit in UK when everyone started going about how people over 60 shouldnt be allowed to vote.
If crooked Hillary didn't use her scummy friends to steal the nomination, would he have won the election?
Oh please, we all know who really rules the UK.
Actually, I didn't vote for any of them. But sure. Let's pretend every mention of something political is due to a losing potential presidential figure and not a substandard understanding of the political system.
L O N D O N
O
N
D
O
N
I think he could have swung Florida at least, and if he focused on either Pennsylvanian or Ohio he would have won.
the saudis?
the political climate at the moment is pretty hot.
He would have stomped Trump into the dirt. A fucking flaming sack of shit would have done a better job then Hillary, the DNC literally chose the worst candidate they could have.
I think that one whiny school teacher who ran just to cry about how broken the system was would have done better, at least he'd be sympathetic.
I reiterate, as stated in the very first post, this is not an Anti-Trump rant. I literally don't care about this year's election when regarding this post. I'm speaking as in forever. Since we became a nation.
That being said, I understand how troublesome it would be to have everyone go out and vote on every single issue. But what about the ones that cause the most controversies? I'm not saying there should be some every day vote, but we can't decide as a whole what to do about the banking system? We can't have an official vote on abortions? No healthcare issues? Know what I'd go to the booth for? Voting on college debts. I understand it would take more effort. Effort that is seemingly nonexistent. But to me, people seem to take action more often with things they actually care about. I've heard non-voters deny voting all together because the elect said this issue was right, but that issue was wrong.
Who decides what causes the most controversy ?
I will always be against democracy even with Trump winning.
Precisely. The electoral college is an inherently anti-democratic institution.
>similar to brexit in UK when everyone started going about how people over 60 shouldnt be allowed to vote.
The thing is that would be active discrimination which is also anti-democratic.
Because of mob rule, lets say majority of people want the government to make a coca cola slide in middle of city
rational people think it's a retarded idea and waste of tax dollars, but majority think it is great idea and over rule with majority vote
now DC has a coca cola slide in middle of the city blocking traffic and draining money
other example is that we have a guy who says country should have a nation wide BBQ and government should pay for ribs and beer for all participants, rational people think this is huge waste of tax dollars, majority want big ass BBQ party, they vote and it passes, now USA has nation wide BBQ and government has to cough up the dough to fund it
some guy decides we should all get 1k a month for sitting on our asses, people think hey if i can get money by doing nothing that would be awesome, rational people know the money has to come from somewhere and it isn't sustainable, vote passes and for the little time it is in effect people sit on their asses and waste money, but wait there are no cashiers, who do we buy from oh well lets go home, wtf no one has collected the trash, someone is breaking into your car, you call the police station but lines are full no one is coming to help you, law goes to vigilantes that become corrupt, martial law is called but wait military personnel joined the sitting on their asses ranks and so did the riot control, vigilantes vs gangs duke it out on streets, buildings burn and people complain that tv's are down and that the local Mac Donalds doesn't serve whoppers, a law is passed that force Mac Donalds to serve whoppers
The subjects that are most argued?
it would be too hard to implement now, but you really should have had compulsory voting from the start. the winner getting 18% of the total populations vote is a little silly.
The electoral collage gives a voice to rural areas that would otherwise be drowned out by those of the urban population centres.
You expect every person to be adequately informed on every issue? We (are supposed to) elect specialists that would represent our best interests.
Yes, actually, I do. I think it's incredibly sad no one knows what the hell is going on.
I have bad news for you, if your sentence contains "they all need to be killed", I think you might be the problem
It's a question of logistics and efficiency. Entrusting someone to represent the will of several people cuts down on the time it would take to negotiate. Imagine if a war could only be ended if every person on both sides had to come together and hash out terms.
The electoral college balances democracy with republicanism. Demographics matter, but so do independent states as a whole. Just like Congress where population dominates the House of Representatives, but in the Senate each state has equal representation.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe on a state level you do indeed get to directly vote on issues such as abortion rights at least some of the time.
But shit like the banking system? I can guarantee that 90% of the people don't even really understand the issues, or what problems potential solutions might cause. Any vote would have to be put on a broad terms, which means the elected officials would end up making the real decisions anyway.