Federalism is where the central/main power has more authority than the lower political subdivision. Not the case; which is why Murder, Rape, Theft, and all those types of crimes, are at the State level, and things like Discrimination, Equal Rights, are at the Fed level; unless, it crossed State boundaries. SmoothieX; it would still be the United States of America. I am advocating a return to State powers, and one State, not telling another State what it can, or can’t do; but advocating that the Democratic Representation, the House of Representatives, be more representative of the individuals. Wouldn’t it be nice, if you knew, that your Representative, actually agreed with you. For example; you’d end up with at least one Libertarian House of Representative member.
I was very confused by this comment, because your definition is pretty much the exact opposite of how I understand it, but wikipedia tells me, that apparently that's not your mistake or mine but a general discrepancy of definition of that term between the US and Europe.
@ Roger Wilco Seems then that our understanding of the word, has then led to a breakdown of communication. Which does happen from time to time; in the end, the word doesn’t really matter, my issue is I don’t like it when people be it my next door neighbor, or in another State, are dictating to me how to live. Much like, the people in Europe, enjoy this thing called the European Union, but are still sovereign to themselves; i.e. Germany doesn’t tell France, what laws they must pass and vice versa. @ Screamy; I assume, you are referring to the Civil War/War of Northern Aggression; if not, then I’ll still use it as an example. Since, the common misunderstanding of the cause of that war was the Northern States view of the Southern States practicing Slavery as a Human Rights violation; it would be within the jurisdiction of the larger political body, because we do have something called Reciprocity; i.e. I have a Missouri Drivers License, and I can drive in all 50 States on it, since they all have Drivers License’s too.
I could make a comment re: the EU and how soverign each nation actually is, but that might derail the thread into discussing the pros and cons of the EU. And this thread is about the US Electorial college system. But why not let the electorate decide. Say at the mid-terms h(or even the 2016 presidential election) ave a referendum which simply asks a question like. (and yes I know not everywhere votes at the mid-terms) Should the US change to a popular vote to elect the President or keep the Electorial College system. Change to Propular vote. Keep the Electorial College.
^ There is no national referendum process short of a Constitutional Amendment, but Gallup polls have found that at least 60% the nation at large has favored a national popular vote since the 1960s.
But isn't an Ammendment made to the US constitution if a majority of the states ratify it (75%)? So could each indiviudal state hold a referedum on changing how a president is elected? But the arguent is which is more important the majority of the people in deciding who is their President or just the majority in a number of states that push a candidate beyond the college number needed.
I was going to write a long, detailed reply to Savious' comments which showed a profound misunderstanding of political processes, and of what constitutes a republic, a democracy, or a federation, but then I read this: and I realized there is no point in debating with a slavery apologist.
I definitely wouldn’t call myself a slavery apologist. But in case you didn’t know; many folks don’t do refer to that ‘little’ conflict in the 1860’s as the American Civil War, but instead view it as the War of Northern Aggression. I won’t bother to point out, that the northern States invaded the southern States….opps, looks like I just did. How about, I also point out, that Lincoln really didn’t give a rats a$$ about the slaves, and freeing them. All he really cared about was the loss of taxes, the south took with them….. what you might ask; taxes… yup folks, the ‘little’ conflict in the 1860’s was pre 16th amendment; the major form of tax revenue for the Federal Government was import and export taxes, called tariffs. And which section of the country imported and exported the most, well let’s just say that when South left the Union, they took most of the Federal budget with them. It isn’t so, you sit there and scream; well let’s see, the ‘little’ conflict of the 1860’s started when….April 12, 1861; and the Emancipation Proclamation was issued when January 1, 1863. Yea, it took the Northern States almost two years to figure out they were fighting to free the slaves. Tell you what, in the future; I won’t try to use terms that everyone can understand, since throughout my life, I have found that many times, what one person knows, another knows by another name. i.e. if I had said only Civil War, someone from the south would have been offended. Instead, I’ll just spit out my cultural upbringing words and terms, and leave it up to you all to try and figure out what the FRACK I am talking about. AND EXCUSE me, for thinking that this board, would actually have an open enough mind, to discuss various topics, from a point of view, outside the box. I thought, this thread was about the pro’s vs cons of the Electoral College, vs a Popular vote. To which I expressed a reluctance to go to a popular vote, because I see it as taking away from the sovereignty of the various states, and thereby turning us more into a mob rule. Because, I honestly, don’t think that 50%+1 equals the right thing, every time. i.e. 50%+1 of the southern States, thought slavery was just fine; but that didn’t make it right.
Yes, this thread is indeed not about the War of Southern Treason. Pretty much, but, as has been pointed out numerous times, the majority of the country lives in just the eleven most populous states. The trouble, then, is that any democratic reform is at the mercy of the very minority that unequally benefits from it - unless the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is employed.
Dude, I'm 38 and have lived in the South all but 8 years of my life. I've never heard anyone, not even my grandparents, call it anything but the Civil War. BTW, those 8 years were in.... ....Missouri! I wouldn't call Missouri a part of the South. Just in case you were confused, since it seems like you're trying to make it look that way.
In history, republics have been governments in which there are political institutions for different classes in society to negotiate their personal and factional interests into a coherent national policy, instead of having a single ruler, king or tyrant/dictator, resolve those issues. In the Roman republic (res publica is the Latin for "public thing" more or less,) the income classes had differently weighted franchises in the centuriate assembly, while the plebs, a partly social distinction, had their own assembly (and its franchise.) The Senate was very much a class defined institution, which is why there were periodic calls for its reformation when the society's real classes changed oo much to fit its current composition. In the US, of course, the exclusion of the African origin part of its population marked it as a republic instead of a democracy. More generally, property requirements for franchise or office holding tend to distinguish republics. There could be a monarchical survival, as in Sparta or the Netherlands. But generally, the abolition of the monarchical principle marked republicanism. People like to emphasize the republican principle when they want the state to repress the class(es) they don't like. Because you can have a republic like the US that viciously oppresses the slave class. Democracies are founded on egalitarianism. If the current practical limitation of franchises and office holding in the US and the prevalent scorn for eqalitarianism suggest the democratic credentials of the US are not so brightly burnised, you would be prudent to take the hint.
How does electing the head of state by popular vote diminish the soverignty of the individual states? Does the US president, represent all of the people or just the 50 states? Several countries elect their President by popular vote, so many Americans think why can't we. Which is a valid point. Now of course the Electorial College might have been the most suitable form x years ago. But is it the best now, if the polls which have been mentioned in this thread are correct. 60% of American voters favour adopting a popular vote system. Democracies tend to be founded on the principal of the will of the majority of those eligeble to vote. Some might not consider this fair, but most would agree it's fairer than the will of the minority being forced upon the majority. As for calling winning an election by popular vote mob rule, that's not true and somewhat inflammatory. Many countries elect their head of state by popular (direct) vote. Not many elect them by indirect vote. But a quick wikipedia search shows countries with indirectly elected heads of states as Pakistan (by electorial college) Suriname (by Electorial college) S. Afirca (By Parliament) Switzerland (by Parliament) United States (by Electorial College ) Some might find this interesting reading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_index
And that, is probably the crux of the debate. Those that see the President as a Representative of the People, verse those who see the President as a Representative of the Country. For me, personally, I don’t see the President as a Representative of the People, the People have representation in the House of Representatives. For me, the President is more like a CEO of a company; the people may be the stock holders, but the States are the Board of Directors.
I see no reason why a popular vote for president wouldn't make him/her both. States are nothing without their citizens.
They have non-voting (worthless) representation. Republicans oppose the addition of a DC Representative because it would always be a Democrat.