Originally Posted by
Seneca Pilot
Luckily for the middle of the country we are not a democracy we are a representative republic. If the popular vote was the decider no votes in the heartland would mean a thing. The coasts would choose the president every election. Pure democracy is mob rule and the framers knew this and skillfully set up a system whereby the votes count in the less populated areas. If the move to eliminate the electoral college succeeds half the country would be permanently disenfranchised. If you don't like the politics of the people on the coasts too bad..
Do you really believe all that? Really? Whatever happened to "one person, one vote"? .Shouldn't every vote carry the same weight?
Do you consider it acceptable that the vote of a citizen living on the coast is worth less than that of a citizen living elsewhere?
Or in other words: You are saying some people's votes carry more weight depending on where they live and that is ok?
Have you considered that the two party system is not necessarily desirable. That having multiple parties which form coalitions, as is the case in most European democracies, can be beneficial and desirable.
I think I can see why the EC was established in the U.S. constitution at the time but I don't think it is still the best system for the country.
I think it is extremely undemocratic and unjust when a candidate who did not win the popular vote wins the Presidency. And that's regardless of which candidate may benefit at any given election.
Oh, and of course th U.S. are a democracy, contrary to what you stated. Just not a direct democracy. Most democratic countries aren't either, by the way.