You really really believe you elected your President?

reply to post by Aresh Troxit


Well .. I don't know where your from .. but your education system sucks.

The United States of America is NOT a Democracy. We are a Republic.. and our electoral system happens to be Democratic. Not all Democracies are Republics, and not all Republics and Democratic.

Because we are a REPUBLIC .. the STATES elect the head of the Executive Branch.. the Federal Government is created and maintained BY THE STATES .. the States are not maintained by the Federal Government.

We vote and send that vote to the State.. the State then pledges however many electoral votes it has to the various candidates.

Some states split their votes down the middle, depending on the political climate .. I know Maine sometimes does this, as do a few others.

Also the electorate may cast their vote however they want.. if the Governor says "go Republican" they have to go Republican .. even if the people voted otherwise. Because the people are not voting for President.. they are casting their OPINION .. and it is up to the State to decide whether or not to endorse it.

This was the Constitutional flaw in the first Bush election, where populace voting for Gore was larger, but Bush won.. People were just freakin out how could this be.. well the American school system sucks too .. because most have no idea what a Republic even is.

Hope that clears things up a bit. And yes, we do love our Republic.. well.. except Progressives..

Found the U.S. Office of the Federal Register site re: electoral college.. for those who don't already know, it's a total scam.

www.archives.gov...

Highlights:

"Must electors vote for the candidate who won their State's popular vote?

There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States."

"What are the qualifications to be an elector?

The U.S. Constitution contains very few provisions relating to the qualifications of electors..."

"May I attend the meeting of my State's electors to watch them vote? Generally, each State's electors vote at their respective State capitols. Each State determines whether or not the voting is open to the public."

reply to post by DarkStormCrow


Yeah, that's a good example by what I mean .. many states operate many different ways. Some states like Ohio are swing states because their vote goes to the popular vote .. some states are divided, and some states actually count by district then apply the number of electoral votes to represent that division (for instance, 2 votes republican, 3 votes dem) .. To the OP: Each state and Common Wealth has their own constitution which usually defines their electoral procedures.

This thread kinda got away from me so I'll reply to what I can without addressing anyone specifically.

I'll offer the 2008 presidential election and the results of Nebraska, simply because Nebraska is one of only two states that have the capability to split their votes. Obama recieved one vote from the second district (Omaha metro area) while the remaining four votes went to McCain. There was some question, quickly answered, on whether or not the elector of the district would vote for Obama as the district had. It would be the first time the votes were split since the law began in the 1990's and the first time an Nebraskan electoral vote went to a democrat since the 1960's.

The electoral college has been used, in my experience, primarily to give the less populated states a voice in the election. Otherwise you'll have the east and west coast dictating every election outcome. Based on their populations alone.

The current practice of most states in addition to high levels of voter apathy can result in some belief that the system is 'rigged' or 'unfair'. The college ensures a two-party system within the government, a strong third party would threaten the capability of any candidate reaching the required 270 electoral votes needed for the presidency. This is fostered by the states' winner-take-all system.

Either way, each of the three possible outcomes has their inherent flaws. Popular vote silences the less populated states, winner-take-all silences the minority voters in their respective states and district voting is under serious threat of gerrymandering and unequal distribution of votes.

I watched the UK elections, I thought it was interesting that the majority party elected to parliament voted for prime minister as opposed to a direct popular citizen vote. At least, that's how I think it goes.

reply to post by links234


Right on about how the Third Party candidates are shunted from the process.. throughout our history we have always only had two major parties.. theoretically I suppose you could say it's always been some form of Federalist and Anti-Federalist party..

For a Third Party candidate to ever get to the point of taking a Presidential Election however, it would have to be assumed that party had some strength behind it.. so that by the time such a man won the Presidency (or woman) Congress would be filled with its members.. I don't ever forsee an America with more than two parties.. sadly.. then again watching the UK, more than 2 parties just adds to the choas.. like Torries and Libs, polar opposties making a Government together.. someones promises are bound to be shattered.

reply to post by Rockpuck


The education system isn't the problem. We just do not center our classes around the USA; we have a life, too, y'know! That is why I'm asking!

How can you say it is a republic when all you can say is your opinion that might not even be considered? Republic means literally public royalty, in the sense you make your own decision, which is not the case when it is examined from closer, no?

In my country, we have liberals that act conservatively, conservatives that act liberally, federalists that act like segregationists and independentists that act like federalists. It"s as if they tried to have a program that is contrary to their name... Since political tendencies seem to be the same all around the world, what would be the contrary to a republic?

Don't forget; I'm only trying to learn here, and will ask questions like a kid; full of nonsensical hurting truth...

reply to post by Rockpuck


When we have a political stall, sure someones promises won't be filled, but that's how it works in a democracy where the voice of the people counts directly in the election.
The leaders will have to find a common ground, or go back to the "drawing board" in order to find a viable solution for the majority.

And for everybody's info, I live very near England; I live in Canada! It is close! It is a view of the mind, tho.

As for third and even fourth parties; we had parties that began very small and were seen as independent but eventually won the popular favor and finally became major parties. We are not stuck to only 2 views of the world because we are composed of more than that.

[edit on 23-5-2010 by Aresh Troxit]

reply to post by Aresh Troxit

When we have a political stall, sure someones promises won't be filled, but that's how it works in a democracy where the voice of the people counts directly in the election. The leaders will have to find a common ground, or go back to the "drawing board" in order to find a viable solution for the majority.

But I was talking about the UK .. the "people" don't elect their Prime Minister (technically the Queen does) .. their elected officials "create" their coalition.. sometimes at complete odds with what the people wanted (in the case of the UK)

And for everybody's info, I live very near England; I live in Canada! It is close! It is a view of the mind, tho.

Then that may be why you don't understand what a Republic is.. you live in a commonwealth.

Republic means literally public royalty

What? .. A Republic, as the US is defined, simply implies "Representative Democracy" .. in all actuality, the US is hardly even a Republic, it's actually more in line with a confederacy .. but as it is, we are a Union of States, or Republic.

Since political tendencies seem to be the same all around the world, what would be the contrary to a republic?

It's more a barrier of Language.. in different countries you see "Democrats" .. sometimes that means Liberal, but not always.. sometimes it literally just refers to people supporting Democracy. I cannot explain the way Canada is and why the way they are..

Don't forget; I'm only trying to learn here, and will ask questions like a kid; full of nonsensical hurting truth...

Lol. And if I sound rude I'm not intending to be.

Edit to add.. Apparently the British word for Republic is Commonwealth (?) Canada is a Republic.

[edit on 5/23/2010 by Rockpuck]

Mmkays here we go.. this is what I meant by we are actually more in line with a confederacy:

A confederation is an association of sovereign member states, that by treaty have delegated certain of their competences to common institutions, in order to coordinate their policies in a number of areas, without constituting a new state on top of the member states. Under international law a confederation respects the sovereignty of its members and its constituting treaty can only be changed by unanimous agreement.

en.wikipedia.org...

When the United States of America was founded, we were actually founded as a confederation of States. The original Constitution was called the Articles of Confederation. The reason it was tossed out was that the Federalist deemed it to "loose" in it's contract (which it was) and added more personal rights and so forth into the new constitution.

Technically, the "definition" of the Government structure has never been "officially" designated.. that is to say, there is no legal definition that America is in fact a Republic or a Confederation.

The Civil War between the North and the South was fought over State Rights, hence they were a Confederation ..

Each State and commonwealth in the US has a Constitution, they have their own Governments, capitals etc.. if the Federal Government were removed they would operate as 50 independent states. No other country in the World is set up like this, with such powers delegated to certain territories.. Which might be why our system of "Republic" makes no sense to some people.. because we are not a Republic at all, we are a Confederation. Personal voting cannot extend outside of the legal bounds of your state.. thus the States elects the Executive Branch, since it represents the Many States. While we vote for Personal Representation through our Senators and Congresscritters.

Confederacy is alive and well in the US too .. we call it by a different name today: Constitutionalism and Libertarianism .. ultimately their aims are to return to the original founding ideas of limited Federal power, thus reforming the original Confederacy.

EDIT: .. And for Canadians and Russians and Brits who have different meanings for "Confederation" which in some countries means "To become a Federation" the United States of America is a "Confederation" .. because technically membership in the Union is voluntary, whereas a country like Canada, the UK or Russia they would operate as a Federation (which is essentially the same as a Republic). Membership is mandatory. Some Americans like myself will do anything to prevent our Confederation from being completely Federalized into a Federation.

[edit on 5/23/2010 by Rockpuck]

reply to post by Rockpuck


Your first paragraph makes it sound as tho Britannics and Americans had a similar system... No wonder people are getting away from politics with, assuredly, a voluntary twist of things to loose people in the dust...

Oups for the re part of republic. Because it is also the same root as king. Maybe king and thing have the same origin... After all, many countries rejected monarchy... hmm.

I think I'm beginning to be more informed, and I thank you. Things are more messy than I would have suspected...

It's so funny that it brings you to a state of non-laugh...

reply to post by Aresh Troxit


Republic guarantees the absence of Monarchies .. Which I believe is the deciding difference between the British "Commonwealth" and the term "Republic" .. Canada for instance is run like a Republic, however because it has a Queen and Royal titles, it is a Commonwealth (you are controlled by the United Kingdom)

The Republic however does not guarantee against he rise of a Plutocracy .. IMO .. any form of Democratic system automatically gives rise to the Plutocracy. When you force your statesmen to be prostitutes, naturally those paying their bills will become most powerful.

reply to post by Rockpuck


It's cool you talk about plutocracy... Here's what I found last night...

www.theatlantic.com...

In 1789, George Washington's salary was worth 2% of the total U.S. budget!

In 2010 money, it translates for more than half a billion!!! I don't even know the name of what they must be making today!... Unbelievable!

reply to post by Aresh Troxit


He did make more than any President.. he made $25,000 .. which back then was substantial. But it's hard to say it's worth "today" .. because we don't use the same currency as we did then. in fact in that era there was rather bad inflation.

And the US was not nearly as Federalized, so the US Gov took in and spent far less than it does now (as a total of total us wealth)

But as you point out he was worth over $500 million .. very wealthy. He also was a smuggler, ran a quasi pirate organization, laundered money from the treasury and so forth lol..

reply to post by Rockpuck


Was he a Skull and Bones? I didn't know about his ties with pirates... Only that he chopped cherry trees...

So what does the President embodies for the people if they do not vote directly for him? And the Feds?
My guess is it is not as much into the heart of the people as we are led to believe, am I right?

reply to post by Aresh Troxit


No he wasn't skull and bones. He was a fellow Freemason though, not that it has anything to do with skull and bones. He doesn't "serve the people" actually.. he serves the States. The people have to support him, as the States are representations of the People of those States, but ultimately it's the State that elects the Executive Branch.

The Congress and Senate are the direct representations of the People. not the Executive Branch.

reply to post by Rockpuck


Oh. I think you got it wrong... He served the people... to a third party for an undisclosed amount?, like 500 millions... LOL

You talk of the Executive Branch, is there another one? And does the Executive one has the ability to enforce a certain set of laws? I would guess the Army, the Navy and the Air Force are subjected to it or does it answer to someone else?

By the way, a big thank you for your time in helping me understand. I could rely on research alone, but I would miss some subtle points.

Rockpuck, you are dreaming.

We are a Republic, not a Confederation. Or in your words, we are a Federation.

Membership is not voluntary. That was the question the Civil War answered.

reply to post by Grumble


So membership to the Federated United-States of America is mandatory? Does that mean that if Texas was leaving the Union, it would be taken back by force?!?

I didn't see that one coming. You bring a nice point, thanks.

reply to post by Grumble


Not so.. we are a Confederation. Show me a single Republic where each district/state/territory etc has a constitution?

The States have to form as states first, then meet requirements to be voted into the Union. It's called a UNION (please note, no other Republic in the World operates like this) because the states unified under one specific goal.

And it's confederation, not Federation .. because while the civil war, a war of aggression, was to keep the south in the Union, no Federal law actually mandates membership, nor has the Supreme Court ruled in such a way. In fact, because of this, the North had to hire it's own "politicians" to fill the void of the south. They moved northern supporters into southern districts to get elected (one major reason for the North freeing slaves).

The only thing the civil war did was show us that Federalist will never relinquish power unless by force.

reply to post by Aresh Troxit


This is a hypothetical situation. If Texas left the Union, whether they are permitted to is irrelevent, because the Federal Government would attack them anyways. Assuming that it is in fact legal for the States to leave the Union, as was prior to the Civil War, and the Federal Government attacked them anyways (such as the Civil War) then the question of legality is obsolete.