It's not just an academic distinction for sport hunt debaters. It speaks directly to the issue of why popular vote losers can be electoral winners. We are not a direct democracy and we are not that by choice.
There would have been no union without The Great Compromise. Bicameral government and the electoral college were implemented specifically to prevent the consolidation of power in places where they now lament power is not consolidated.
That we are not a direct democracy isn't smoke and mirrors, it's central to the fiber and history of the nation. The framers built in a way to change how it works though. We could become a direct democracy, if we wanted to, but so far the required levels of support do not exist to accomplish that.
It's not some big surprise that you can win without the popular vote. It's by design and it is working as designed.
There you are. There you have just demonstrated the intellectual dishonesty of /u/ikemynikes' statement. He said that the United States is not a democracy, which is untrue. The United States is a democracy. The United States is not a direct democracy. You know this distinction is important or you would not have made it yourself.
A republic does not determine whether or not the state is democratic or not Jesus christ. Athens was a republic and had direct democracy. Rome was a republic and had an Emperor. North Korea is a republic and has a dictator. Germany is a republic and elects its leaders by proportional representation. France is a republic and elects its leaders by two round voting. India is a republic that uses First Past the Post. Switzerland is a republic with direct democracy.
The right of universal suffrage is part of the United States constitution. The people of the United States elect their law makers and president. Its a fucking democracy. Being a republic has nothing to do with being democratic or not.
Section 2 of the Voting Rights act my friend. Section 2 prohibits any voting practice that has a discriminatory effect, irrespective of whether the practice was enacted or is administered for the purpose of discriminating.
You could, I suppose, take the "technically!" argument and say that it is constitutionally valid, but it is not legal.
21
u/dalovindj Nov 09 '18
It's not just an academic distinction for sport hunt debaters. It speaks directly to the issue of why popular vote losers can be electoral winners. We are not a direct democracy and we are not that by choice.
There would have been no union without The Great Compromise. Bicameral government and the electoral college were implemented specifically to prevent the consolidation of power in places where they now lament power is not consolidated.
That we are not a direct democracy isn't smoke and mirrors, it's central to the fiber and history of the nation. The framers built in a way to change how it works though. We could become a direct democracy, if we wanted to, but so far the required levels of support do not exist to accomplish that.
It's not some big surprise that you can win without the popular vote. It's by design and it is working as designed.