@Gunfigher06: notsureifserious.gif

Oppose 17th amendment? Really?

Yeah, that's Gunfighter for ya.

@gun: Opposing the 16th and 17th admendment does nothing to make you look less ... Crazy. Saying the US is a federation of semi-sovereign states is FAR more interesing than saying it is a republic. Being a republic does not stop you being a democracy; and neither does having a constitution.

Being a federation of states might actually stop the US from being considered a democracy (even if they are all democratic states)

I believe that a republic is a form of democracy:
A democracy being a state in which the sovereign power resides in it's citizens.
A republic being a (type of) democracy in which sovereign power is exercised (indirectly) by representatives elected by the citizens.

My commentary would be that, human nature being what it is, none of this works as well in practice as it does on paper.

"Personally, I like to emphasize the word "republic" to highlight the fact that the United States are really 50 semi-sovereign states, not 50 archaic and meaningless political boundaries."

Then you're inventing a new definition for "republic." France is a republic, yet is one of the most centralized states in the world. India is a republic and has states, but those states' borders can and have been redrawn by the central government. The central government can also replace the elected state government with direct "president's rule." So Indian states are hardly "semi-sovereign" and under your definition of republic India would be excluded.

As I said before, "republic" and "democracy" are not mutually exclusive terms. One can easily have both, or one, or neither in any polity. Making a distinction the way you and others do is just making an inarticulate argument for limited government. A good position and one I support, but one which requires different words to make.

I'm with Jeff in this thread.

Also, I like the electoral college, and I wouldn't even say it's "reliable enough." It's not even meant to give the same result as the popular vote -- if it were, it would indeed be silly not to just scrap it -- so I don't consider it a failure of reliability when it does not.

Invictus again great post.

The republic of ireland is, likewise a republic. The United Kingdom is a democracy but not a republic (it's a monarchy, hence kingdom). The People's Republic of China is republic, on the edge of being a democracy (one party state, the party dictates who can run for election but the people still vote... Tough call on it's democratic merit)

This is largely a semantic arguement, so examples are really useful. And the meaning of words definitely changes over time - based on usage. But under the current usage, the US is definitely a democracy!

Article. IV.
Section. 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

I don't see how the PRC is anywhere near being a democracy. It's a communist dictatorship, pure and simple.

Earlier in 2014, New York did something very dumb.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/states.php?s=NY

I'm very sad to see that, Jeff. It will create a huge trainwreck if that is ever passed by a majority (though there are various Constitutional grounds one could imagine for killing it).

This interstate compact is simply the cowardly way to abolish the Electoral College. If we were to really address the issue, we'd naturally be faced with a crisis over the Senate's legitimacy. Why should Wyoming with hardly any people have the same say in a chamber as California? The answer now is that the inherent federal nature of our government legitimizes this gross disparity. But if we were to unravel the federal aspect of presidential elections, how can we justify keeping the same imbalance in the Senate?

We couldn't. If simple popular vote is to be the formal way to elect a president, then Congress ought not be so skewed when it comes to popular representation. We'd need to either abolish the Senate or strip it of most powers. Or, I suppose, turn it into a clone of the House, as state senates largely are. All those options are, frankly, revolutionary.

*That* is the real reason why the Electoral College will never go away, and why this compact will never be relevant. The reforming spirit inherent in abolishing the Electoral College has a logical conclusion in unrecognizably reforming the Senate. Short of an Article V convention or coup d'etat, that will never happen.

"how can we justify keeping the same imbalance in the Senate?" Easy. By saying that this is not a democracy.

Then why make it so the president is elected by a simple popular vote? Having done that, it's hard to see how Senate reform can be logically resisted. Again, that's why abolishing the Electoral College will never be done. In itself, it would be hard to do, and in doing it we would have to address the democratic deficit in the Senate. Reform there is even harder, and more actors have an interest in keeping things the way they are than even exist in the Electoral College. Thus, the Electoral College will never be abolished, because the actors who benefit from the way the Senate is currently set up will see these problems well in advance and head them off at the presidential stage.

The states who have passed the compact so far are free-riding off an idea which, deep down, they must know will never come to fruition. The politicians get the benefit of looking like they're doing something to for progressive reform while safe in the knowledge that the vested interests of the current system are not at serious risk of being unsettled. It's a brilliant political move on their part. And nothing more.

You seem to be biased toward the idea that democracy is necessarily good in every way.

fascism is clearly the best option

Worst system except for every other one.

"You seem to be biased toward the idea that democracy is necessarily good in every way."

I'm not that way at all. I can't even see how you're reading that into what I wrote. I'm giving what I think is a fairly objective look at the situation.

You forget, Invictus, that a Senate reform is actually not allowed, even by Constitutional amendment.

From Article V (on amendments):

"provided that ... no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

I didn't see the need to go into that, which is why I simply said Senate reform was even more difficult than abolishing the Electoral College would be. Presumably, an amendment could be passed repealing that section, and then another passed for reform. Or the states could consent, as may be possible in the face of enough public pressure. A high hill to climb either way.

that said i go back to my earlier point where you can have 76.8% of the people vote for someone, and someone else still get elected.

'Don't look at a challenge as a hill to climb, think of it as to rise above those who stand idle or fearful'

If you want your vote to matter more, there's a simpler way to do it than changing the constitution:

Move to Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, North or South Dakota, Delaware or Montana.

is that sarcastic? i cant tell

I have problems with the existence of the sete anyways although I'd have much fewer problems if the House could split state votes

*senate

Yes, a fair bit of sarcasm, even if it is true. Ohio and Florida will get lots of attention during 2016.

A unicameral system would be not so great. Sometimes gridlock is good, but only when the underlying foundation is solid.

One of my poli sci profs way back suggested that the electoral college could be revamped so that electors based on House Representation for each state are apportioned to meet the popular vote, and that the two electors for the Senate are awarded as a bonus for whoever wins the state. Not a bad idea, but I don't think it's a battle worth fighting.

Can you imagine recounting the entire popular vote of the United States if the election turned out to be close? 2000 was bad enough.

That would take a consensus of all the states since they choose how to select electors. Good luck with that.

All of you are missing the entire point of the Senate. The Senate is the house of the *states*, not the house of the people. Pre-17th Amendment Senators were originally delegates sent (and recalled, in some cases) by their respective states, and represented the best interests of their respective state governments.

I'll admit that the Senate doesn't make much sense in the era of leviathan-Big-Brother centralized government, but if the United States was to de-centralize our government as originally intended by the authors of the Constitution, then A) the Senate would make a lot more sense and B) the 16th and 17th Amendments wouldn't make any sense.

Why is this even an argument, Democracy was a dirty word to the founding fathers.