Continued: A Republic, if we can keep it.

Which doesn't change the fact that people vote for the POTUS.

 

Nor does it change the fact that the popular vote which would be straight democracy is not how the president is elected in the United States of America.

The popular vote and a quarter can get you a senior coffee at McDonald's.

 

Voting=democracy, that's the definition of democracy.

 

I can State the facts of the electoral college system for you but I cannot understand them for you.

 

GM FatBack,

I quit trying to pound facts into the heads of a few here on Political Forum that deny we are a republic: It turned out to be an exercise in futility. I can only muster a few reasons that some people could be so obtuse or blind or resistant regarding this issue with the overwhelming documentation I proferred. I can't think of any more proof I can offer to help them recognize or accept reality.

1) Deprogramming them from their educational indoctrination is not as easy as I thought it would be.

2) They are trolls who bait people for thrills.

3) They are professional propagandists of the Democratic party.

The latter is doubtful as this forum does not reach enough people to expend such a resource.

Is there anything we can do to help or heal them?

 

A DEMOCRATIC republic, since we vote for POTUS and congress both of which are federal govt positions how does that NOT fit the definition of democracy?

 

I really doubt it.

It's evident that their intent is not to learn but to spread disinformation.

Though I do find such blatant denial of reality somewhat amusing...

 

I add one more piece of documentation about our form of government. The very first words in the U.S. Constitution:

Section 1 - The Legislature

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

 

whatever we call this system of government it is uniquely our own, and contains flaws that make "two wolves and a lamb voting on the menu sound almost serious.

1. no one doubts that the monarchy in the uk is a democracy. bicameral parliament. one house elected by the people of geographical destructs. the other house bloody hereditary. what is for dinner? i hear her majesty likes cucumber sandwiches.

2. no one doubts that many new england towns are democracies. everyone can speak. everyone gets one vote. if the good people of salem decided that you are a witch, who was for dinner?

3. everyone knows that until the ides of march rome was a republic. roman senators were a class of romans, elected by no one. totally hereditary. a herd of wolves with legions of warriors who did not have to vote "who is for dinner?"

i propose that we quit trying to be something we are not, and work on being good at what the founders wanted to do : establish a government that represented the consent of the people,

 

Trump and his supporters are enemies of democracy.

 

whatever we call this system of government it is uniquely our own, and contains flaws that make "two wolves and a lamb voting on the menu sound almost serious.

1. no one doubts that the monarchy in the uk is a democracy. bicameral parliament. one house elected by the people of geographical destructs. the other house bloody hereditary. what is for dinner? i hear her majesty likes cucumber sandwiches.

2. no one doubts that many new england towns are democracies. everyone can speak. everyone gets one vote. if the good people of salem decided that you are a witch, who was for dinner?

3. everyone knows that until the ides of march rome was a republic. roman senators were a class of romans, elected by no one. totally hereditary. a herd of wolves with legions of warriors who did not have to vote "who is for dinner?"

i propose that we quit trying to be something we are not, and work on being good at what the founders wanted to do : establish a government that represented the consent of the people,

 

What a wonderfully simple and suscinct explanation of what OUR Nation must do to thrive and prosper.

 

whenever i hear that stupid damn "two wolves and a sheep" story i just want to barf. then they have this story that it makes a difference whether it is called a "democracy" or a "republic." when we all know that sheep are on the menu no matter who is counting votes,.

 

OK

 

It's how we vote for our president that makes us a Republic. Under a Democracy the popular vote is used. We use the Electoral College.

 

no one in rome voted for president, or electors. there is no electoral college in the peoples republic of chinas.

if the founders spent a decade of the 1780s quibbling like this no wonder they signed a constitution thar guaranteed that nothing can be accomplished.

 

We have a Republic, and a damn good one, no major nation in existence today has a government that has lasted longer than ours. The secret of ours is that all power resides in The People, therefore, our people never have to revolt in order to regain power.

A new constitutional convention to propose Amendments:



Our system has two ways to draft amendments, either both Houses of Congress can pass by Supermajority and then they go out to the States for ratification, or, the State Legislatures can meet together to draft amendments. The Framers ensured that this second method was included in Article V just in case the Federal Government stopped listening attentively enough to The People, and after nearly a quarter of a millenia it's time for the State Legislatures to exercises some coordinated control over the Federal Government that the State Legislatures formed so long ago.

Drafting amendments takes the agreement of 34 State Legislatures. Two issues getting a great deal of attention are "a balanced budget amendment and establishing term limits for members of Congress in an effort to rein in a runaway federal government."

 

Nope, voting is all that's required.

 

You are very correct; it's a common mistake made by many (not on purpose in most cases, but as you mentioned, out of ignorance).

 

Well that particular person has had the error of his perception pointed out to him multiple times.

Such a person is not willing to learn they've already made up their mind. As incorrect though it may be.

I suppose sometimes stubbornness is a good thing but not when you are incorrect.

 

This definition was posted in this thread as proof we are a democracy:

Full Definition of democracy

1a: government by the peopleespecially : rule of the majority
b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

The member who posted it was ensnared because it's vague, confusing, and seemingly contradictory. Right now — it's very early — I don't have the initiative to dissect it. Be my guest though.

It takes a few espressos and a bite to eat to get me rolling.

 

First to the OP - "If we can keep it". If we can keep what .. we verred off the Constitutional Republic path long ago

Now to the above gibberish - posted by folks who don't understand what "our" CR is- sorry to say and nor would you be expected to know ... as 12 years of school and we fail to teach the founding principles on which our system is based - and there are only a couple .. and a few sub-principles.

1) Authority of Gov't comes from "Consent of the Governed" We the people (as opposed to divine right/God) .. Oh .. sorry .. you both knew that one .. BuZZZZZZ No you don't .. What does this mean as per a Constitutional Republic. How is that consent expressed .. yes via a "Democratic Process" but only 2 marks out of 10 for that answer.

2) The authority that we give Gov't .. is supposed to be limited .. by What ? Ask anyone if they want totalitarianism - or limits to Gov't power . they will cry .. NO NO NO .. we don't want totalitarianism. OK .. great .. what are the limits .. how are they enforced - at which point deer in headlights will show up.

3) So what is the "Legitimate Authority of Gov't" in our Constitutional Republic . as opposed to a pure democracy. In our CR - Essential Liberty is put "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't. Gov't then has ZERO authority - "Of its own volition" - to make law messing with Essential liberty... be it Federal, State, Municipal.

If Gov't wants to make such law - it must appeal to "we the people" - appeal for a change to the so called "Social Contract" - construct by which the people give Gov't authority to mess with a particular liberty. This bar however is NOT 50+1 , or Simple Majority Mandate (SMM)
50+1 referred to in both Republicanism and Classical Liberalism as "Tyranny of the Majority" .. which answers the above question - as this is what distinguishes Constitutional Republic from Pure Democracy.

SMM is self explanatory. What is the point of limitations to Gov't power .. if by merely getting elected - those limitations are removed. SMM does not confer authority to mess with Liberty... contrary to popular belief.

The bar for consent is "Overwhelming Majority" at least 2/3rds .. 75% as in the number of states required to ratify a new constitutional ammendment.

Your first question might perhaps be .. how come our referendums are 50+1 .. Mine too

So in a constitutional republic .. you have a constitution which outlines areas that are out of bounds. While the Constitution outlines some basic liberties - it was never intended to list all of them - Law and the Constitution are thus to be interpreted as per the above principles.

So for example Pot -- clearly an essential liberty. Perhaps back in the days of reefer Madness you "Might" have had 67% consent for such a law - Obviously these days .. that law has become illegitimate .. "illegitimacy of authority" .. Gov't no longer has the legitimate authority to punish people for smoking weed.

Hopefully will be thinking "Good Grief" that is not how we do things -- I know .. and it is sad how far we have fallen down the slippery slope .. so far we can no longer see the mountain top .. Every sitting member of Scotus should be dismissed - dereliction of duty - failure to interpret law and the constitution as per the founding principles.

 

Thanks for your post.

Is it your point that we are a republic, a quasi-republic, a democracy, a quasi-democracy, or just that we are slowly and sadly slipping away from a republican form of government? If it is the latter, would you please offer an example or two for this oldtimer? (I suppose rule by select mobs might qualify?)

Referendum and initiative are the only instruments of democracy of which I am aware. I don’t equate democracy to voting; democracy has a definition. If I felt the need to elaborate on the word “voting,” I would use the expression “freedom to vote with restrictions.” Even “free and open elections” has the wrong implication as not everyone can vote.

Thanks

 

https://foundationsofliberty.org/democracy-vs-republic/

Democracy VS Republic

Democracy: All decisions and power reside in the voice of the majority. As a result an individual, or group of individuals making up a minority, have no protection against the power exercised by the majority.

Republic: A republic refers specifically to a form of democracy in which elected individuals represent the citizen body and exercise power according to the rule of law under a constitution which protects the basic rights of individuals and the separation of powers with elected representatives.

 

Meh. You just hate capitalism. You'd abandon the US for its tendencies toward capitalism.