Fair enough. However constitutional "liberals" have abused the term 'democracy' to such a degree that it has become meaningless, effectively now being code for limited and/or fragmented government handcuffed by constitutional rules that forbid it from undermining property rights or engaging in too many acts which benefit the many over the few. Democracy means popular control, which elections between competing oligarchs at the regional level do little to enhance.

"Are you high? George W. Bush won a majority in 2004. He would have been president then even without the electoral college."

The flaw with taking past election results and extrapolating from the popular vote tallies that Republicans would win is that the electoral college suppresses turnout in the populous areas of the country, which are overwhelmingly Democratic. Imagine how many more NYC residents or people in California would vote if they knew they, as individuals, counted. California has 37 million voters. 3 of the top 5 states in terms of population are solidly Democratic. Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan are in the top 10 and have very large, solidly Democratic population centers. Urban turnout in Republican majority states would also be higher. This point is obvious when you consider Republicans are devising schemes to divide up the electoral votes of Pennsylvania to thwart the majority that favors the Democratic Party. Dividing up the vote into districts so that you have to get votes from the broad swath of unpopulated America favors Republicans.

"Would you still support the appointment of state governors in America if a Republican were the one doing it rather than Obama?"

Sure. It'd bring daylight to the blatantly unconstitutional social policies they try to get away with at the state level. They wouldn't be able to get away with it at the national level. There's no way in hell the Supreme Court allows the "heartbeat" bill or other nonsense to pass.

Alright putin, while I will freely admit I'm not an expert on russian history, my Russian history course was taught by a Russian national, a Muscovite, who got his history degree from Moscow State University. I would tend to agree with him on points of Russian history. There was no textbook for the course, just him lecturing, so its not a publisher's interpretation either, its his. He taught that Lenin did not want Stalin to become head of party. Lenin wanted all Soviet States to be equal, while Stalin sought to subjugate them. Lenin regretted choosing Stalin as General Secretary and Stalin abused his power to appoint cronies to positions and prevented Lenin's last will and testament from being read. Stalin editted Trotsky out of every past picture with Lenin, and demonized Trotsky for his own personal gain.

Also, I didn't mean it as a cultural smear. I just noted that every time, since the first Romanov was appointed after the Time of Troubles (meaning, excluding him), that there has been a contested change in government, it has been a strongman who takes power, though the popular people may not have wanted it. Peter the Great comes to mind, same with Lenin and Stalin (I'm saying Lenin because the nihilist agriculturists who didn't want the Tsar didn't want Lenin ever-so-slightly less). I don't mean to smear. I will admit President Hayes shouldn't have been in office, G.W.Bush, and other western events, but I can't recall a popularly chosen Russian leader (even meaning simply having the support of the base population) when there was a contested regime change

@Invictus - three. Clinton would've won 1996 no matter what.

@ Putin - while your analysis of the effects of the electoral system are correct, they go both ways. Perhaps conservatives in urban or traditionally democratic states don't vote normally because their vote means nothing because the democrats will always win those electoral votes. As a New York conservative, I really don't think my vote counts at all above local levels.

What what what? Putin33 partially conceding a point and not acting as if he is absolutely correct on absolutely everything? Historic times.

"
The flaw with taking past election results and extrapolating from the popular vote tallies that Republicans would win is that the electoral college suppresses turnout in the populous areas of the country, which are overwhelmingly Democratic. Imagine how many more NYC residents or people in California would vote if they knew they, as individuals, counted."

Yeah, but the same would go for Republicans in states which dependably go Democrat. I live in Illinois, and anecdotally I know many people from the parts of the state not by Chicago who just don't bother voting. The state went 60% for Obama, and if I remember right Cook County was almost 80%. Once the Democrat wins Cook County by such a huge margin the election's pretty much over. I mean, in 2010 the governor only won three counties, but because one was Cook County with Chicago in it and the Daley Machine he was able to hang on despite the whole Blago scandal.

And if it's only that pesky federal system we have keeping us from perpetual one-party rule by Democrats, then how do you explain the results of national polling, where people say who they would support? Surely when you're the only pinko commie in Bibleton, Utah the fact that a Democrat could never win your state wouldn't change the answer of whom you would vote for, even if you ended up surrendering to despair and not voting. There are national polls where Mitt Romney is beating the President. HArdly seems to show a situation where on party represents a permanent majority.

Would you just admit elections are competitive? Just admit the president is vulnerable, even if you think he'll still win? It's just as insane to think that Democrats will just win elections as to think Republicans will jsut win elections.

As for the governors' thing
"Sure. It'd bring daylight to the blatantly unconstitutional social policies they try to get away with at the state level. They wouldn't be able to get away with it at the national level."

What Scott Walker did was not unconstitutional. It also wasn't a social policy.

"three. Clinton would've won 1996 no matter what."

He won 49.2% of the vote. I was only talking about him winning a majority of the popular vote, not winning the election in the electoral college. With lackluster Dole and Perot back again I agree it was his to lose in how our system is set up, but the fact remains he did not win a majority.

The idea that the so-called "last will and testament" (which was nothing of the sort. for one because nothing of the kind was permitted in Communist politics, this wasn't a monarchy) was hidden is absolute lie, repeated over and over again by Trotskyite opportunists. The "will" was read out loud at the 13th Congress. It was not published because Lenin did not want it published. Anyway at that very Congress Stalin asked if he should step down from being General Secretary, as Lenin suggested out of anger because Stalin was keeping political reports from him, as the doctor ordered. It was discussed by the leadership (which included Trotsky!) who all decided unanimously that he should stay on.

Furthermore, Lenin himself appoint Stalin General Secretary in 1922. Stalin was the only person who was a member of every important administrative body in the USSR during Lenin's time - > Central Committee, Politburo, Organizational Bureau, and Secretariat.

Lenin's nationality policy was so different than Stalin that Lenin went out of his way to say this (in 1921) : "We need a man to whom the representatives of any of these nations can go and discuss their difficulties in all detail. I don't think Comrade Preobrazhensky could suggest any better comrade than Comrade Stalin."

Lenin in his dying days wrote a rather nonsensical memo. You have to remember the guy was shot in the neck, and the bullet wasn't even dislodged until his last year of life. Lenin clamored for political reports, but the strain of them affected his health. His wife disobeyed orders about giving Lenin political reports, and Stalin scolded her about it, which angered Lenin. Hence the memo, which was puffed up by the Trotskyites out of pure opportunism.

Trotsky his entire life was anti-Bolshevik and anti-Leninist, there are reams of criticisms by Lenin of Trotsky over a long period of time. He only jumped on the Bolshevik bandwagon when it appeared they would win. The idea that this guy was the true "heir" of Lenin is a hilarious, and it makes me happy that Trotsky's allies in this fight over his inflated reputation are union hating rightwingers.

Sorry the bullet was dislodged in 1922, he was shot in 1918. He died in early 1924, however he was paralyzed and bedridden for all of 1923.

Sometimes I think you're a time traveler. No one's actually believed that nonsense since the 30s, and no one's had to pretend to since Khrushchev.

The constitutionality of Walker's union busting law is not nearly as clear cut as you make it out to be. Especially in light of the fact that Citizens United gave corporate "persons" the same rights as individuals. Unions certainly count as corporate persons. Furthermore there's issues of discriminating against certain sectors of public workers, and violating rights of free association, and (more so in other states, like Michigan) unilaterally nullifying contracts.

Many states don't even have any collective bargaining rights for public sector unions at all. What he did was perfectly legal and constitutional. Whether it's popular enough to hold remains to be seen, but it was certainly legitimate. That's not the issue.

So answer my question yes or no. Assuming the GOP appointed governors would only do things which were completely legal but also happened to be anathema to your beliefs, would you still support the presidential appointment of state governors? Would you accept 50 Scott Walkers acting legally but against what you want to happen? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, Putin33. If you want the leaders of the states to be appointed by a philosopher-king in Washington then you better be ready to accept the outcome if the philosopher happens to be an Objectivist.

If only there were a way to keep some national leader from having too much power over the country and imposing reforms that certain constituencies are opposed to. A check on the national government to keep it from having unlimited control over the people and all levels of public life. Oh yeah, it's called FEDERALISM!

I would accept it as a necessary price to pay for annihilating federalism, the last refuge of the slaver and segregationist. At any rate governors would be approved by state legislators, if we go by the Putin/Chinese model.

Well, enjoy your ideological isolation, then. I'll be stunned if anyone here would agree with that position.

And do you seriously think that rejecting a presidential governor appointment wouldn't mean a reduction in federal funds at the very least? Heavy spending by Kremlin cronies to keep those legislators from being reelected? Maybe a bit of wet work if they made too much noise? Far easier, more legitimate, and better for everything if the people just elected their leader. But I guess I'm just some kind of a leftwing radical here.

The most volatile and anti-government regions of Russia (mostly in the North Caucasus) get by far the most federal money.

Anyway why would your stereotypes suddenly change if they elected governors? You'd still say that Putin would manipulate elections, heavily fund UR candidates, and/or even assassinate opponents. Even if and especially if there's absolutely no evidence of it. It doesn't matter what he does, the chauvinists will always complain. Yeltsin was far more autocratic and corrupt, but he was a western darling. Putin should do what's good for Russia.