Was Electoral College a mistake?

The entire fucking "nation" was a mistake. The british should've hung fucking everyone and leave the continent depopulated.

And what is Aleppo?

>Aleppo
wut

*hanged ;^)

No, it was quite deliberate.
youtube.com/watch?v=YGL8CiUtXF0

It was and it wasn't. Remember, the sort of government the Founding Fathers envisioned was one dominated by the States, not putting them as glorified administration units like they are today, with all real power held in Washington D.C. The main role of the federal government in general, and of the president as executive of that government, was to play referee and make sure that the disputes between those states didn't get too out of hand.

The Electoral college, therefore, was a selection process, by the government of the states, because ultimately, they, not the common joe, is the one who really deals with the federal government. That's why, for instance, smaller states get more electoral college representation per person than larger states.

The system worked as designed, but especially due to the Civil War, the balance of power between the states and the federal government shifted permanently, and the state governments were vastly reduced in scope. Suddenly, the president had a much different and much more expansive role, and the whole point of the electoral college kind of withered away, but not the college itself.

A leppo?

No. Urbanites should not dictate what farmers want. California has equal say in elections as much as Montana. Mob rule is bad in the long run.

The "popular vote win" was by the same amount he lost California. You think that a system that gives all of the power (instead of just a good chunk of it) in deciding the President to only the large urban centers is better?

In all honest the EC is probably the best but there's no voting/election system that's ideal because every instance of it can be gamed in one manner or another.

>You think that a system that gives all of the power (instead of just a good chunk of it) in deciding the President to only the large urban centers is better?
Yes because that's where the majority of the population lives.

Do you think giving certain sections of society a disproportionately large share of the vote is any kind of democracy?

Yes.

>afraid of factionalism
>no real safeguards against factionalism
>didn't realize that lack of term limits would reinforce factionalism

fuck em

I think the electoral college is important, because without it, smaller states would have no reason to remain a part of the USA, because they would be too small for their interests to be considered by the federal government.

I'd rather have absolute equality of votes than geographical equality.

We're not a democracy.

No
Without it you get problems where cities control too much
When cities control too much they debase the land around them
When you debase the land around them people move away from rural communities to urban ones
Once this happens food prices skyrocket and you are dependant on imports, this raises the price of almost everything
This prevents social decay and keeps the living wage managable
This prevents unrest
Thus without the electorial collage we would have way more problems than we do now

Evidently.

But you should aim to be.

No, we shouldn't. We're a Republic, always have been, and always will be.

>No, we shouldn't
And why not?

Watch that video, idiot.

>muh youtube videos
Classic /pol/

How is telling you that we're a Republic and should stay one /pol/? Was Thomas Jefferson a /pol/ack?
It's only ten fucking minutes. What, are you deaf?

yes.

the system was put in place in a time where not all your citizens would be able to see/hear a candidate speak or even be up on current issues. This is why representation and political parties were big deals...the politicians had to represent isolated communities.

Basically the college gave a voice to marginalized people while at the same time it prevented ignorant people turning the presidency into a population contest.

the college should have been done away with by the 1930s

>How is telling you that we're a Republic and should stay one /pol/?
Anti-democracy is /pol/ at its finest.

Not to mention the half-baked political analysis that goes into this distinction between republic and democracy as if they're the antithesis of one and other is very /pol/-tier.

That's ten minutes too long, faggot.

remember that it puts more power in the hands of people who actually produce things (farmers, miners, factory workers) and less in the hands of those that don't produce anything (hummanites, journalists, barber)

If you think your parties are different from one another, then I have a bridge to sell you.

>services are not valuable

I'm not even American and I don't think it was a mistake. America isn't a democracy, it is a constitutional republic that is designed to ensure that it doesn't degenerate into mob rule.

They aren't. But on the count of how many of them we have it's possible to win without more than half the vote.

That was the point.

Its not democratic

Yes, terrible mistake to restrict popular control over government, which judging by the attire of those gentlemen was clearly their primary goal. I'm sure the amount of property and humans they owned played no role in their decision-making process whatsoever.

Are you a retard?
The video states that there are about five major political systems, Autocracy(Rule of One), Oligarchy(Rule of Few), Democracy(Rule of Many), Republic(Rule of Law), and Anarchy(Rule of Nothing).
A few can be discarded, though.
Autocracies do not actually often exist, as even Kings and Dictators have councils and advisers, one of them is just the leader and head of the state. Effectively an Oligarchy.
Anarchy never exists for long, since a leader emerges. Even tribes have chiefs. As a political movement, it often really just means a change from the current system, with Anarchy not really being the goal. Some "Anarchists," through riots and assassinations, are able to create chaos in their state, which leads the people to the only power able to restore order, the Anarchists, which just creates a new government, often an Oligarchy.
Democracy never lasts long, as rule of the many without proper law restraining them leads to chaos, with anything that can get even 51/100 votes happening, even if that means hanging an innocent man, for example. A lynch-mob is a good example. If 35 men hunt down a bandit, catch him, and hold a vote to hang him, it'll likely pass, 35 to 1. In a Republic, there could be laws restraining this, like the ones in our country that state that every man is entitled to a fair trial.

Do you understand what I'm saying? Just watch it, if you want more information.

>put a minority of the most elite, wealthiest citizens in total dictatorial control of the state

>don't call it an oligarchy because constitution or some shit lmao

If it has laws that restrain their actions, then, yes, it is a republic. There are many types of republics.

No. Individual state agency needs to be respected in federal elections, or else you get civil war.

I am not saying services aren't worth anything
but if you remove one group society collapse and if you remove the other the popularity of bowl cuts will rise.

A piece of paper won't restrain anyone, numb nuts. What you're describing is one faction of an oligarchy restraining another. Every state is a total state.

Don't bother. Motherfucker just discovered political science. He doesn't yet reside in the real world.

The problem with that is that democracies and republics go hand in hand. A democracy votes to institute a republic, but there needs to be a balance between the rule of law and the will of the people. Can you call, for example, Trump a democratically elected president (and by extension the "will of the people") if the majority of people did not elect him, but rather a system of rules based on an electoral college? Is his laws that he enacts the will of the people, or is it the will of the minority? This is where the conflict lies.

No

>The video states . . .
The video is fucking wrong. There are innumerable political systems and republic is not "rule of law" in the way that democracy is "rule of the people". A republic is a system that doesn't have a king so rulers are elected or appointed instead. It is entirely possible for a republic to be autocratic, or democratic, or oligarchic, or aristocratic, or really any kind of -ocracy.

America is supposed to be a democratic republic whereas the UK for instance is supposed to be a democratic monarchy. Hence the constant references to democracy by US presidents virtually since the country began.

>Do you understand what I'm saying?
Yes, but it's totally wrong. Simply factually wrong.

I think you're probably in highschool so it's not really your fault that you don't know but I strongly advise you start reading books and learning about politics from proper sources because this analysis is frankly retarded and it'd be a disgrace if someone went into the adult world with this comprehension of politics.

You've gone so far off from your original point. Also youre an ass.

Oh by all means let's let fagafornia, jew york, florimethida, and Texsux elect all our presidents.

A piece of paper will restrain people, numbnuts, if there are people to enforce what's said on the paper. Like cops. Of course, corruption is still a problem, but at least they're forced to hide it.
Republics aren't completely separate from Democracies and Oligarchies. A Republic can have Democratic elements, like ours does, and it can have Oligarchic elements. But they are still a Republic, if Rule of Law resides over Democratic vote or Oligarchic decisions.
I explicitly said that there are many kinds of Republic. You are pointing out something that I agree with.
And we are a Democratic Republic. It's just that Law, in this case, our Electoral College, is more important than Democracy, in this case, the majority vote.
And now you're just insulting me.

I never even said anything about whether the Electoral College is good or not, I just said that we are a Republic, and should remain one. Whether the Electoral College should remain as the Law in our Republic was not part of my point.

thank mel gibson for that

>muh majority
A cunt hair of a percentage point above what is essentially a 50/50 split is not a "majority". Why the fuck does 51 votes have some kind of moral high ground over 49 votes?

Good god I am sick to death of you spoiled bubble dwelling faggots who feel entitled to run the country over the objections of close to half the people in it. You do not somehow know better than everyone else just because you happened to be born in an urban center.

>if you remove the services of the government, society won't collapse overnight

>48/46/5

And the difference is more people, duh.

Maybe if you didnt live in an unstable urban center composed mainly of voting plantations full of violent scofflaw minorities, your society wouldn't collapse the instant your government stops preventing the aforementioned minorities from dragging your unarmed overly socialized ass out of your hip urban gentrified apartment into the street to get raped.

Actually your original point was, and I quote, "We're not a democracy." Also when I said that the US should aspire to be a democracy you said "No, we shouldn't. We're a Republic, always have been, and always will be." Implying and/or outright stating all of the following

a) The US isn't a democracy and never has been
b) Democracy and republic are incompatible
c) Democracy is undesirable

Not to mention the speech you made in the post I'm just after replying to.

It's okay to admit you're wrong. Backpeddling just makes it look like you have absolutely no integrity and are out to "win" the argument rather than get any closer to the truth.

>And now you're just insulting me.
I'm not insulting you, I'm insulting the video. I've already acknowledged that you're probably too young to know better.

>I never even said anything about whether the Electoral College is good or not
No?

>But you should aim to be (democratic, by abolishing the electoral college).
>No, we shouldn't. We're a Republic, always have been, and always will be.

about that

and why exactly do you consider fifty people voting to make one person their slave a government that should be aspired to?

if you can't articulate the points then why are you even arguing

Kek, whatever you say lad

Even accepting your strawman argument I'd consider that preferable because at least if I get enslaved by a 50:1 vote I got a vote at all. Marginally better than unilaterally getting enslaved by the government without any opportunity to resist.

I also acknowledge that mob rule is simply a fact of existence. If 50 people wanted to enslave me bad enough, and the people around me weren't willing to help I'm going to get enslaved no matter what the law says. This is a fact of human existence that has always been and always will be.

>a) The US isn't a democracy and never has been
It's not, it's a Constitutional Republic. It has Democratic elements, yes, tons, but it is not an actual Democracy, a pure one.
>b) Democracy and republic are incompatible
I never said that.
>c) Democracy is undesirable
A pure Democracy is very undesirable.

>>I never even said anything about whether the Electoral College is good or not
>No?
>>But you should aim to be (democratic, by abolishing the electoral college).
>>No, we shouldn't. We're a Republic, always have been, and always will be.
I didn't take up my position because of my love for the Electoral College, I took it up because of people calling us undemocratic as an insult, because of it, which is ridiculous, because we're not an actual Democracy.

My point is and has always been that we're not a Democracy, we're a Constitutional Republic with Democratic elements, and that we should not change to an actual Democracy, where a majority vote can do anything, even hang an innocent man with no trial, or take the property and money of someone just because he has an abundance of both.

Fagafornia, Flormethida? Not even trying.

Whey even bother having a government and the illusion of rule of law at that point jackass? Let might make right, and let the weak fear the strong.

But in a government like the US', that would be illegal, meaning you'd have the people who uphold the law to protect you.
How is a pure Democracy better, again?

Democracy was a mistake.

>every single person's opinion on what benefits the nation is equal and valid

Demonstrably false. Also provides a possibility that a communist will be elected.

Shit system.

"Pure" democracy? Maybe not.
"Actual" democracy? Absolutely, no matter what your youtube videos say. Lawyers, political scientists and politicians worldwide are unanimous on that the USA is a democracy.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

The USA, whilst not the highest, ranks quite highly. If you're going to insist that nothing short of pure, unorganized mob rule is a "true" democracy I must point out that that's just a no-true Scotsman.

>I never said that

What else did you mean by "No we shouldn't [be a democracy]. We're a republic"? If you aren't implying that those two systems are mutually exclusive what was the point of pointing out that out?

>I didn't take up my position because of my love for the Electoral College
I don't personally know you, so I could be wrong. But I would hazard that you've taken up this insane view of politics because Donald Trump won the election because the electoral college, just like every other /pol/yp that's suddenly an interest in the fine (and imagined) distinctions between republic and democracy.

But that's neither here nor there.

>where a majority vote can do anything
I'd like to point out that your understanding of democracy is actually called anarchy, and your understanding of anarchy is not anarchy at all.

But nonetheless the US is a democracy. To look at the definition of democracy
>a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
Which is exactly what the US does. It's not a "pure" democracy because it's a representative democracy. People don't directly have a referendum on everything, they elect representatives from among themselves to act on their behalf within the government.

Just like the UK, just like France, just like basically every democracy on the planet. The distinction is that the US has a retarded mechanism that allows a president to be elected with a minority of the vote.

Why should I aim to be part of a nation that I have no say in? Ultimately, someone's going to get their way and someone's not, I'd rather be in the former category than the latter.

If you've got a better solution that allows us to both walk away happy, tell the thread and let us evaluate it.

>Whey even bother having a government and the illusion of rule of law at that point jackass?
So that the people who might actually try and enslave me if they ever realized their power stay spooked and leave me alone.

>meaning you'd have the people who uphold the law to protect you.
If you're implying cops dependably uphold the law unconditionally I have bad news for you.

>inb4 but they usually do
That's right. And usually raving mobs of people don't try to enslave me. But if we're going to discuss unrealistic scenarios we shouldn't be drawing the line at "cops being corrupt" whilst "roaming democratic slavers" is still acceptable.

> I'd rather be in the former category than the latter.
So would I, but there's one thing you need to understand about non-democracies.

It would be absolutely fantastic if you agreed with the government on everything and never had any trouble with them. But that's not what's going to happen because "you" aren't really in control, someone else is and you just happen to temporarily be on the same page as them. Eventually your interests and their interests are going to conflict.

This is why democracy is good, you can at least have some say in what happens to you rather than simply hope you're lucky enough to agree with the government. And more importantly I have far more in common with the millions of other unremarkable low-class plebeians than I do with influential empowered people. So by sharing power with people I have common interests with I can more reliably get my way.

>>(...)
>The USA, whilst not the highest, ranks quite highly. If you're going to insist that nothing short of pure, unorganized mob rule is a "true" democracy I must point out that that's just a no-true Scotsman.
As I've said, numerous times, we have many Democratic elements. But our system of government is a Constitutional Republic. No matter how much or how little Democracy you have, if you have laws that are upheld, even if a majority votes to break them, then you are a Republic. If established laws are more important than pure percentage of votes, it is a Republic.
>>I never said that
>What else did you mean by "No we shouldn't [be a democracy]. We're a republic"? If you aren't implying that those two systems are mutually exclusive what was the point of pointing out that out?
My point is that we are better as we are, a Constitutional Republic with much Democracy, than as a pure Democracy. Pure Democracy, where majority vote is more important than Laws with systems in place to create or repeal them, is bad, and incompatible with Republicanism. Democracy itself is not, which is why our Republic has many Democratic systems.
>>(...)
>Just like the UK, just like France, just like basically every democracy on the planet. The distinction is that the US has a retarded mechanism that allows a president to be elected with a minority of the vote.
We are not a Democracy, because we can't just hold a vote to pass any law, repeal any law, or do anything else, we vote for representatives, in ways that are occasionally not as Democratic as they sometimes are, who vote and debate on these things, and pass laws and policies restricted by our Constitution and previously passed laws. My point is that we are better under our current system than we would be if we were a pure Democracy.

>>meaning you'd have the people who uphold the law to protect you.
>If you're implying cops dependably uphold the law unconditionally I have bad news for you.
>>inb4 but they usually do
>That's right. And usually raving mobs of people don't try to enslave me. But if we're going to discuss unrealistic scenarios we shouldn't be drawing the line at "cops being corrupt" whilst "roaming democratic slavers" is still acceptable.
One unlikely thing happening doesn't make other unlikely things more likely. That's why you shouldn't gamble.

I disagree that voting power actually has much effect on our nation at its current size on the words of a man who's name escapes me at the moment: "Democracy is simply two armies lining up, getting ready for war, counting their soldiers, and the smaller side agreeing to the terms of the larger one."

This is all well and good when democracy is held at a smaller level of government. In your city and county levels, the threat of action is there in the populace if the majority doesn't get its way. Corrupt police chief gets back into office for another term? People cry foul and take steps to remove him through law. Mayor misuses funds for a pet project no one wants? People find out and drag his name through the mud until the very mention of him is a dirty word.

But at a national level, consensus is never reached, and the nation stays divided. Any time a person in power causes problems, they rally around the small base of people that still support them and ignore the rest. Power is firmly in their grasp to the detriment of the citizenry. Dissent is downplayed to a footnote.

If you want democracy, you'll have to dial things back to the states, counties, and communities having more say than the federal government, because that's the only way you'll actually be able to create a functioning government that can somewhat agree on things. Right now, we simply have the issue of 52% of people agreeing with a the guy in charge and the other 48% being hung out to dry, which is incredibly unfair and one of the major failings of democracy.

He's saying that he doesn't want to be part of a Democracy, not that he doesn't want any Democratic elements in his government. We still have tons of control in our country, us Americans, even though we aren't a Democracy, we're a Constitutional Republic. Why change to a Democracy?
>inb4 America is a Democracy
We are a Republic with laws that include the Democratic elections of officials. We are not an actual Democracy.

Again, you seem to be making the mistake of believing that republic and democracy are mutually exclusive. They're not, and as a matter of fact you acknowledged this earlier when you claimed to agree with my point that the US is a democracy and said "And we are a Democratic Republic.". Of course you claimed you never said the US wasn't a democracy in that post (and when confronted on that, went on to flip back to saying the US is a republic and a democracy like you're doing now). At this point it is glaringly obvious that you're just trying to save face and that even you don't truly believe what you're saying. The US is a republic, I understand. But you need to understand (indeed I think you do understand this, you just think you have to "win") that republicanism and democracy aren't mutually exclusive.

You also seem to have the silly idea that a country is only a democracy when it's 100% anarchist and majority rule applies everywhere. By these standards no country on Earth is, or ever has been, a democracy.

>Pure Democracy, where majority vote is more important than Laws with systems in place to create or repeal them, is bad, and incompatible with Republicanism
Except no one is arguing for anarchy. You're just shifting goalposts and applying no-true scotsmans for the purpose of saving face.

What I'm arguing for is that the US is a normal western democracy. But for some reason you seem to autistically insist on understanding "democracy" as "total anarchy".

>We are not a Democracy, because we can't just hold a vote to pass any law, repeal any law
Actually yes you can. You can start campaigning right now to repeal or pass whatever law you like, you can even contact your local congressman who's supposed to represent you in exactly this way. Marijuana advocates have been doing this for quite some time and finally it's paying off, showing that yes if you get enough popular support you can change the law.

>pure democracy
>pure
You keep using that word.

The thing is corrupt cops are infinitely more likely than roaming bands of slavers.

And that wasn't my point anyway. My point is that neither of those situations are particularly likely so it's hypocritical to allow one for rhetorical purposes but draw the line at another.

>We are not an actual Democracy.
At this point I think you're trying to convince yourself of this more than anyone else.

By your arbitrary standards (which you seem to have come up with on the fly during this thread) there are no democracies.

I never said voting power has much of an effect, my point is that by it having effect at all it's inherently preferable to non-democratic systems of government where you don't get any kind of say. Of course it's problematic when elected officials are corrupt, or consensus cannot be reached, or certain sections of the electorate are being disproportionately advantaged. But getting rid of democracy doesn't actually solve any of these problems.

You also missed another part of my point which is that democracy is preferable because I'm not very different from the majority of people and for the most part our interests are very much alike, so by having leaders be selected by people like me they can more reliably meet my demands than people who aren't elected. Like monarchs or dictators.

To add to that another thing is that any leader in any system is going to be accountable to a number of people who they will have to satisfy. Democracy has the benefit in that this number of people includes myself and people like myself, a leader can't simply ignore what we want unless the country is so unbelievably corrupt that it would be a mistake to call it a democracy. If we were to instead be say, Saudi Arabia. Where leaders aren't elected and the economy is entirely dependent on one resource suddenly I might find my needs being very neglected in favour of the needs of those who control the oil.

Democracy isn't perfect, but it's not supposed to be. It's supposed to be realistic which it largely succeeds at. Even if we're heading for Charles de Gaulle style pseudo-dictatorships in the near future.

I keep telling you that we are a Constitutional Republic, and not a Democracy. My definition is this: a Republic is a government in which established laws and, usually, a constitution, are considered as having more power than a majority vote. In our system, we have many Democratic elements. You could even call us a Democratic Constitutional Republic. But we are not a Democracy. I have never said that Democracy and Republicanism are incompatible, in any form, but that a system in which the votes are more important than the rules is a bad system, and not what we have.
I am classifying a Democracy as a government in which you can change the laws to anything you want, instantaneously, if you have just one more person than the opposition. We are not this. We elect officials meant to represent us to pass laws, repeal laws, Etc. Those officials need to work within the current system, and it is a complicated thing to change that system. And there are some laws, that, even in everyone in congress and the senate voted for, as well as the president, just could not be passed, as they are in violation of the Constitution.
I keep using that word to differentiate between our system which has many Democratic elements, but is, ultimately, a Republic, and a system in which popular votes reigns supreme.
I've set my definition.

The thing you must understand is that your definitions aren't actually binding nor are they followed by anyone besides yourself. Indeed Oxford quite strongly disagree with your definitions, so lets see what theirs are.

>A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch
Hmm, yes. That sounds a lot like America. It doesn't sound very much like your definition though, I don't see any references to the supremacy of the law in there.

>A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives
Wow, that sounds a lot like America too. But for some reason that doesn't sound at all like your definition, no mentions of an instantaneous ability to unconditionally change the law if you have 1 more vote than the opposition either.

Earlier it wasn't so bad that you're hilariously wrong because well, you're obviously underage so I can't expect you to know much. But the way you argue as if it's a game you need to win is ridiculous. It's no crime to just admit to being wrong, but you make yourself look like an ass when you constantly contradict yourself, backpedal, and summon definitions out of thin air. It doesn't even seem like you know what you're arguing for, it seems like you're just reactively trying to dispute every point possible for the sake of saving face.

> everyone in congress and the senate voted for, as well as the president, just could not be passed, as they are in violation of the Constitution.
I see you haven't even gotten to US Govt. in your highschool education yet because you ought to know that it's entirely possible to amend and repeal parts of the constitution. As happened with the 21st amendment which repealed the 18th.

>system in which popular votes reigns supreme
And that, as you've now discovered, is not the definition of democracy. So you can stop saying it now.

>>(...)
>Hmm, yes. That sounds a lot like America. It doesn't sound very much like your definition though, I don't see any references to the supremacy of the law in there.
I should've clarified that I meant our Constitutional Republic.
>>(...)
>Wow, that sounds a lot like America too. But for some reason that doesn't sound at all like your definition, no mentions of an instantaneous ability to unconditionally change the law if you have 1 more vote than the opposition either.
They still aren't bound by the framework that those in a Constitutional Republic are. I was just giving an example of something they could do, without that binding.
>(...)
I just want to win. I won't properly respond to your insults.
>>(...)
>I see you haven't even gotten to US Govt. in your highschool education yet because you ought to know that it's entirely possible to amend and repeal parts of the constitution. As happened with the 21st amendment which repealed the 18th.
Yes, it is possible to add to it, and to take away additions, but the core cannot be changed, and just amending it is a very complicated process which isn't just a public vote.
>>(...)
>And that, as you've now discovered, is not the definition of democracy. So you can stop saying it now.
It is the definition of pure Democracy, in different words.

We are not a Democracy, because we are other things before that. Our Constitution is more important than popular vote.
Also, could you cite some of these "contradictions and backpedalings?"
I'll respond in a few hours, I have something I need to do.

>I should've . ..
>our
This qualifier is dodgy since you can just retroactively void any impartial definition of "constitutional" or "republic" or "constitutional republic" when it doesn't fit your argument on the pretence that it isn't "ours".

>They still aren't bound by the framework that those in a Constitutional Republic
They are through. Every democracy on the planet is bound by some constitutional structure, but of course you don't seem to believe democracy exist.

Not to mention you can't just add your own bits onto a definition and say the definition is incomplete.

>I just want to win.
I know you do. That's precisely why I'm insulting you.

There's no point getting into arguments just for the sheer ego trip. If you aren't actually going to adjust your views to the truth it's just a waste of time for everyone involved.

Also, what do you think constitutes "winning"?

> but the core cannot be changed
Yes it can. That's fundamentally what "amendments" do.

>and just amending it . ..
Yes, and democracy is a very complicated process that isn't just a public vote. This is what I've been trying to tell you.

>It is the definition of pure Democracy, in different words.
No it isn't (ignoring the fact that pure democracy is a category you made up). That definition explicitly states that there's nothing undemocratic about representatives, which has been the crux of your argument against the US being democratic. That it's government by representatives rather than direct referendums.

>We are not a Democracy, because we are other things before that.
Th US is but. Does it not fit the definition of democracy outlined previously?
>Our Constitution ...
It isn't though. The constitution is fully accountable to popular vote, if enough people voted in enough representatives who wanted to change something about the constitution it would be changed. It's the constitution that's accountable to popular support rather than vice versa.

It's not about geography; if it were then the states would be the same size. It's about federalism and state sovereignty. This keep the few from taking total power.

The U.S would have never happened without an EC type system. The EU will never unite without an EC type system (in fact, the EU parliament already has an EC type system in that countries have a minimum amount of representatives and small countries are over-represented)

Why? Regionally differing values, which manifest themselves as regionally different voting. As much as some people like to claim everyone is an individual and so on, it is just a statistical fact that even in non-fptp systems political parties have their own regions. Region A votes for party 1 and region B votes for party 2. Parties 1 and 2 are entirely different. Party 2 wins because the region B is much more populous. Region A realizes that most people living in their region wanted party 1 and desires for independence arise. These problems become especially apparent when the political parties are radically different, because any ideas of "greater good" or "long term planning" become irrelevant.

A large driving force behind the Scottish Independence referendum was the preceding U.K parliamentary elections when the Scots voted for reds and but the English voted for blues. This shows that even very old unions can be shaken by political differences, and that unity can't be taken granted for.

Did y'all know that four states get over 2/3 of all presidential campaign visits in the last two months before the election?

Did y'all know that those four states are Ohio, Virginia, Florida, and North Carolina?

Did y'all know that none of those states are small states?

Did y'all know that Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, and most other small states get zero visits from either presidential candidate?

But the electoral college sure gives representation to those small states huh :^)

Nice point!

However, people in rural areas tend to be on welfare at a higher rate than those in urban areas.

So sorry Rufus, if the government didn't exist, you and your cousin/wife would be worse off without your free money than city folk with actual jobs.

Absolutely yes

>>(...)
>They are through. Every democracy on the planet is bound by some constitutional structure, but of course you don't seem to believe democracy exist.
Then they're Republics.
>(...)
>>(...)
>(...)
>There's no point getting into arguments just for the sheer ego trip. If you aren't actually going to adjust your views to the truth it's just a waste of time for everyone involved.
It's fun.
>Also, what do you think constitutes "winning"?
Getting you to relent.
>>(...)
>Yes it can. That's fundamentally what "amendments" do.
No, they don't change the core. Or, at least, they haven't, so far. Our system of the three branches, Etc., have not changed.
>>(...)
>Yes, and democracy is a very complicated process that isn't just a public vote. This is what I've been trying to tell you.
Then it's not Democracy. It's something else with "Democratic" as the first part of the name.
>>(...)
>No it isn't (ignoring the fact that pure democracy is a category you made up). That definition explicitly states that there's nothing undemocratic about representatives, which has been the crux of your argument against the US being democratic. That it's government by representatives rather than direct referendums.
My definition is Democracy, with no modifiers, and modifying nothing.
>>(...)
>Th US is but. Does it not fit the definition of democracy outlined previously?
A Democratic Presidential Constitutional Republic is not a Democracy, it is what it is.
>>(...)
>It isn't though. The constitution is fully accountable to popular vote, if enough people voted in enough representatives who wanted to change something about the constitution it would be changed. It's the constitution that's accountable to popular support rather than vice versa.
And people can vote in representatives who don't vote the way they said they would, or that the voter assumed he would. That's not popular vote.

Our argument seems to be this: you think Democracy is a category with many things inside of it, I think it is one specific thing with many related things.
Yes, our system would be in the family of Democracy, but it is not the oldest member, the Democracy I've been arguing against.