...Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
:help:
:clown:
Printable View
...Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
:help:
:clown:
The features of the American state Americans tend to point out as features of a republic are actually features of various kinds of democracy. Eg. the point that Americans do not directly decide government issues, but elect representatives to govern on their behalf, is not directly indicative of a republic, but of a representative democracy (democracy because they vote, representative because that's what they vote for). The system of separating the electoral mechanics of voting in the upper and lower house is also not directly indicative of a republic, as it is of a desire to mix political systems so it's harder to fix the electoral process.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
The single salient feature of a republic is that the head of state does not claim to be a monarch.
Thus republics can include democracies such as the US, tyrannies like Saddam's Iraq, oligarchies such as China, etc. Even places like North Korea where the head of state is effectively a monarch can call themselves republics, as long as he doesn't actually proclaim himself a monarch.
The USA was NEVER meant to be a democracy as was stated. It is a warped and corrupt version of what the founding fathers had in mind.
First of all, we have the House of Reps. The true Reps of the people. They were directly elected by the people. They were their representation in government. HOWEVER, the the writers knew that mob rule was a horrible idea and giving people complete control over the government wasn't a good plan.
So... they made a few checks and balance.
For example, before the god awful 17th amendment, the Senate was comprised of people who were appointed by the state legislature of each state. It was the same # as it is today, two from each state. This acted as a good counter balance to the whim of mob rule.
The House proposed the laws and the Senate had to make sure they were rational and approve them. Any law could not get passed, in theory, without the approval of the people because the unelected legislatures could not start them.
What the Senate could do was approve treaties by a 2/3 margin (they still do today) and other things of that short that the average joe would have no clue about.
Now the president. This was more of a mixed system between the two and the federal government left it vague on purpose how exactly states would elect a president.
Each state government is in charge of a certain number of electors. These electors can be appointed however the state sees fit. THEY DO NOT HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY THE PEOPLE. It's just most states have it that way these days.
In my opinion, the electoral college is broken. People think they are voting directly for the president when in theory, they are only voting for a slate of electors who claim they will vote for the president. The whole slate of electors is nonsense in my opinion, but I will respect the states' rights about how they elect a president.
Anyway, a little history listen there :2thumbsup:
What do I think of succession?
I believe in what has already been said. If 2/3 of the states approve the succession, AND two houses both vote with a majority, I would say, yes it's fine.
Amen. Electoral college was implemented upon the presumption by the Founding Fathers that the average Joe Voter is an idiot and cannot be trusted. Now, they might have been right, but that does not make the electoral college look any better. If it had a use before, it certainly has no use now. We should ditch the Electoral College and nudge our constitution one more step towards perfection.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
I disagree. This has been covered extensively before. The Senate and electoral college is not just a "check" of the ignorant voters. The reason that smaller states entered the Union at all is because of these things. If they hadn't, massive northern coastal populations would have constantly won elections and kept the south and Midwest as servants. The 2 Senator rule counters the influence of the more populous states in the House.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Yes, but it was a check and balance.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
The smaller states still had influence, but the Senators weren't directly elected.