The debate "Voting through the electoral college is not real Democracy" was started by
November 30, 2018, 5:15 am.
24 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 14 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
MrShine posted 1 argument, Jakellutis posted 2 arguments, TheExistentialist posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
MrShine posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Jakellutis, TheExistentialist, Coriander, jemiju and 20 visitors agree.
kritika_143, MrShine, byniched and 11 visitors disagree.
You're right and not right. Voting through the electoral college is not "true democracy" because we are not a democratic country. We are a constitutional republic democracy, meaning we elect certain officials to represent the citizens.
I think people often confuse the electoral system with the electoral college.
the electoral system is where we assign electoral points based on the state. electrical college is the group of electors who vote for us and were supposed to protect us from idiots electing dangerous people. it failed.
strictly speaking; yes a electoral college is not a Democratic process. However, it is in line with a Democratic Republic. The key difference between the two are the limitations placed on the majority in a population by a republic. It is thought to prevent "tyranny of masses".
So this isn't in respect to Congress, just presidential election? then why would there be an exception? Also, it is exactly because the Electoral college has the vote that a 'collective majority' is properly represented. Just because a majority is the largest group doesn't mean the largest group represents the group best. It would be irresponsible to do the raw numbers of the entire nations, how would that reflect voters in small communities? Why wouldn't they just leave the union if they can never make a change?
A major argument against electoral college votes are by swing States, and that all other states are not given proper focus because they will not change... but from the previous election it is known that swing States change, in fact all states can change given enough time. So what of the states that have less people? Do we count by people, and ignore the communities? I suppose if the president only wants to represent three of the largest cities he could, and all the others have to hope to be part of the decisions.
The collective majority is choosing an individual from a certain party who votes. Though the odds of them voting for the desired candidate is greater depending on the ballot, the vote still belongs to the electorate's, not the collective majority. If ever there is a popular anti establishment candidate and the electorates have special interests, then the voters may be misrepresented. Every state gets representation in Congress so there is no need to shun the majority in a general election for president.
Except that is not a very common issue, and very rarely is a collective majority rejected. Again, if we only rely on the majority then the minority will have no sway or representation whatsoever. Representing best interests runs the idea that our representatives believe what we believe, but in reality our elections can only submit similarly minded people that are able to take time to vote on these ideals.
Since America is no small town, representatives are, sure, the majority of each state, but eventually the measures of majority and minority ideas changes at each level. A majority in a city could be a minority in the county, yet a majority in the state, yet a minority in the country. This isn't to dissuade majority rule, but if majority rule is the goal then it is not the will of the people, but the will of "most people" in a area. So to reduce flyovers, there must be a way for the minority to push back. It is very rare now considered it should be an issue, but if there was no need to collaborate with the minority, resources may be spent elsewhere and the political divide could be larger.
The flaw of voting through the electoral college is how the majority is represented and what is being voted on. The idea that the populace may choose a representative in the government is ideal for a Democracy to work affectively for the people, except through the electoral college, no one is choosing a representative in the government to take office to work and make political changes on their behalf. The ballot that is placed by a US citizen that goes through the electoral college is a political party that may or may not represent their best interest when it chooses an individual to vote. The majority is the main characteristic of a Democracy, but when the majority's decision is shunned, that's a majority of people who didn't get a say in an election, especially when the voters that were chosen to be represented may then be misrepresented by an electorate. That's not a real Democracy.
At its purist form democracy is mob rule. Elected representatives ensures the interests of people in each state, considering states have their own economies, rules, and values they should have their own representation. Otherwise it would be a rulership of several cities or states over the other dozens of states that cannot be represented by population alone. Metaphorically speaking it would be a baker in the city telling a Fisher in the country how best to do their job, the baker doesn't know the Fisher's life and couldn't care less because in the city there will always be more than enough to outvote. Whether or not the Fisher's vote is disproportional, the baker must suddenly care if they have a bit of power.
Therefore, a disproportional vote that gives more power to the minority does not necessarily favor the minority, and in many votes it doesn't. But it does put the minority on the board to vote, in favor of their own economic circle, in consideration of their own values, and for their own values, else they are lost.