Technically we are a representative republic. We are a democracy in which our representatives have primary decision making power for the people they represent.
I see guests point though. If people in two cities decided who was president, then issues for people elsewhere wouldn't be heard. Most people who live in cities vote for the same people because they have the same issues they want addressed. But people on rural areas don't have those same issues because their area isn't the same and they arent the same people.
Not if they have wrong ideas about what rural issues are and think it's a non issue. There's plenty of people who think the worst issue you can have not living in the city is being a redneck.
It's also important to note that many rural areas support cities. One that commonly comes up in farming communities are water rights- something many city voters don't even k ow are going on, but are major events affecting the livelihood and possibly the survival of those people, and often having big impacts through ripple effect on population centers. What's more, if the logic is that it's more important to represent these more populated areas- then why should the rural areas even have to be subject to their laws? One of the major causes of the civil war was that many in rural areas felt urbanites were being represented at their expense. If we want to be counted as one country we have to make sure to try our best to give everyone equal representation, even if they represent the minority of a population.
The same went for the primaries. I don't know a single person who voted to nominate Clinton, evetyone, even Republicans I know, wanted Sanders. But the powers that be in the Democratic party just HAD to have Clinton. I know ALOT of dyed in the wool Republicans who have never voted anything else who would have voted Sanders over Trump anyday, but no one trusted Clinton, not that they can be blamed.
That's one good thing to come from the mess with the Dems playing dirty. Sanders won't take the presidency. Though that may not have been an issue. Not a single Republican I know would've picked Sanders over Trump. Hell, we'd rather give Obama a third term.
The biggest issues with this concept especially in a place like the U.S. is people tend to have similar ideas based on where they live so often rural people like farmers have a similar way of looking at things while people in cities tend to share a pretty similar one though obviously there are people who go against the majority but the issue here is that people in states like idaho or utah or plenty of other rural places would not get a vote instead of all the states getting a word on who they want as president it would be between 2 states.
In canada our polls close from east to west and every person gets a vote and by the time ontario is done voting the election is decided so there's your choices
France is too small to have states. Like some people have mentiond already, the USA is a representative republic. United STATES of America. The electoral college system gives more power to the states. Representative states is a good thing for the citizens even if your side won the popular vote last time but lost the election. It keeps power away from a centeral govt.
Germany is a Federal Union as well and we don't use representative systems.
And saying it's too big or there are too many people doesn't count in 21st century.
Lmao. It is quite the mess. It's also a laughable idea that size has no bearing on governance, as does the idea of these "utopia" nations without our problems. The grass is always greener. The difference in culture and law will be much greater between Germany for instance and Italy than between California and Florida- despite being geographically closer. There's no perfect place, some people just will take certain problems over others.
I so love how this devolved into the debates. Even absolute democracy isn't a true vote. Because that guy voting for candidate Q. Yeah his wife will only give him head if he votes for candidate Q.
But even if someone were to try and make such a stipulation they would not be able to see proof. Voting is done individually, cellphones/photography is not allowed. They could just as easily say they did it and vote for someone else while reaping the "rewards" as having their vote bought.
It's funny how no one seemed to give a shit about this method that's been used since the founding of the nation until Trump was elected.
Really activates those almonds.
Yeah, no one gave a shit about it. Well, aside from 2000 but that was the first time...aside from the election of 1824 when the more popular candidate, Jackson, lost to Quincy Adams who got more electoral college votes. But yeah, no one gave a shit about it until now aside from the examples where people did.
The French system has NOT worked for 200 years. Its been interspersed with military strongmen (Napoleon) Reactionary Kings (Louis XVIII, Charles X), Middle or the road King (Louis Phillippe), Populist President then Emperor after a coup (Napoleon III), a Grandstanding Quasi Dictator (Charles De Gaulle)
Trump hit 270 electoral votes first, once a candidate hits 270 electoral votes the election is over , popular vote no longer matters and it's a win for that candidate.Thats how he won
That's an awful way to decide the winner because it inherently favors a two party system so we get Cheeto and Cunton as our finalists. If it was a simple plurality to win then we might have seen more variety that stood a chance.
Yeah. I always look for advice from 200 year old dead guys. That's why I start my day with a hearty meal of beer and grains from my fields prepared by my servants, then hand write some correspondence to be delivered by carrier boy (or pidgeon if urgent) and then start hand working my wheel chair in case the polio takes my legs. Then I make sure not to take too many baths so I don't get infected by ghosts- I wouldn't want to have to drill a hole in my head to let the bad spirits out then shove it full of cow poop to keep leprechauns from stealing my juju. Maybe afterwards I'll go find some ladies and minorities who are getting too full f themselves and give them some work to keep them occupied, and if any lady is too mouthy I'll send her to a doctor to stimulate her nethers and get the energy out (since I don't know what a clitoris is.) if that doesn't work she must have skeletal gingivitis and need a labotomy.
Those guys had the secrets of life all figured out.
They knew about governments. They knew that everone is fallible and that is why they set things up so that no single group had absolute power. Not the feds, states, people, or what have you. Everything from checks and balances, to the electoral college, to the bill of rights was designed for that sole purpose.
It's cool enough- if you aren't the servant, the mail boy, or the woman. Equality isn't about making anyone better than anyone else or more important, it's about the fact that most people don't like being the one who has to get screwed over for someone else to have a good day, or at least taking turns being the one who gets screwed. Wether it's rural amd metropolitan, men and women, whatever group and whatever group, aid we wouldn't trade places if the system worked the same way then the system doesn't work.
@famousone- they weren't total idiots anymore than anyone else. Things have just changed in 200 years. Many of the basic principals have not and likely won't ever. But they were smart enough to leave room to make changes because they knew they couldn't foresee the future. I'm just saying that relying on their vision as gospel isn't the greatest idea. All men are fallible and shaped by their age. It took quite awhile after they said all men were equal for the law to reflect that black, Asian, or other non white people and women were also humans and should be treated as any white male. They designed a system based off technology and ability as they knew it at the time. We still lack the capability for a secure direct democracy and questions still exist as to wether people are informed enough to trust with such power.
If 70% of a country is white of course there's gonna be more white people ? What's the point, guest ? And it's probably a larger percentage in France as well.
Not all white people are same just as all black people are the same. There's nothing racist about getting equal representation. Your skin colour doesn't define your political beliefs.
People like to change what they mean by equal representation thiugh. If it was really equal then 13% of everything would be black people to be equal, but you get some places where they want 50/50 when that's not possible without turning people away based on race. Racial quotas are pointless, you need who's best for the job, not race representation.
Yeah true, we're all just people, we're all human, whoever is more fit for a job should get that job regardless of race. You shouldn't hire an incompetent person over someone who can get the job done better because they happen to be a minority in America
I literally cried last month.
My son is a Frosh at a Universitylon Long Island. He came home mid term and said. "Dad. It's almost like I should hate myself for being a guy." And I just hugged him and said "Relax, It'll get better."
And saying it's too big or there are too many people doesn't count in 21st century.
This whole thread is a mess.
Really activates those almonds.
Those guys had the secrets of life all figured out.
My son is a Frosh at a Universitylon Long Island. He came home mid term and said. "Dad. It's almost like I should hate myself for being a guy." And I just hugged him and said "Relax, It'll get better."