How true is this?

@Qwerty14 Representative two-party democracy is still democracy, we just have a kind of dysfunctional version of it.

@QuixoticSoul There is no perfect model.

@hippyjoe1955 No such thing as perfection in this world. But often there is room for improvement

@QuixoticSoul I don't feel any system where less than 50% of the vote wins you the presidency can be called democratic. They openly ignore what the people want. Not to mention the US has an even more messed up system because the people don't really decide the president, the electoral college do.

@Qwerty14 It's not a perfect system. But I can see why it exists. The hillbillies would get clobbered every time, and that's not all that fair either.

@Qwerty14 then you like the tyranny of the majority. It is worse than what you already have.

@hippyjoe1955 The tyranny of the majority? You'd prefer the minority running the show? How is that fair?

@QuixoticSoul The hillbillies are US citizens just like everyone else. They don't deserve a bigger vote just because they are a minority. Because that's what happens in the US. Some states have a stronger vote than others and that is unfair.

@Qwerty14 How about if you spread the power by geography so you don't get LA and NYC determining how Alaska should hunt moose.

@hippyjoe1955 Well state laws stop that anyway. All states have their own rules and representation.

@Qwerty14 Not if you let the majority rule. After all the majority can remove state rights at a whim. After all they are the majority.

@hippyjoe1955 Eh, tyranny of the minority is no better, really.

The electoral college doesn't actually prevent tyranny of the majority anyhow, that's not its goal. That is what all the various supermajority rules are all about - they allow a minority to prevent actions of the majority. Some of our basic constitutional protections are aimed at that as well. The electoral college serves a very different purpose, and provides a basic check on direct democracy. Mostly, it exists because the founding fathers didn't trust us to always make the right choice.

@hippyjoe1955 Actually there are laws in place that stop them from taking away state rights. But again you are arguing that the minority should represent the US. How is that fair?

@QuixoticSoul So what tyranny is the minority imposing on the majority? After all it is likely that the majority voted for Trump last American election since there is evidence of significant voter fraud.

@hippyjoe1955 Laws change with votes. Majority rules change any law you want any time you want because you are the majority.

@hippyjoe1955 To remove state rights at a whim? Come on. In no way does the electoral college prevent, or even affect that process. That's done either through normal legislation, or constitutional amendments. Both have completely separate protections for allowing the minority to block the wishes of the majority. The electoral college is completely orthogonal to any of this.

Don't be ridiculous. There is not.

@QuixoticSoul If you have a majority and majority rules..... Use the grey matter between your ears. If majority can over rule minority state rights are gone.

@hippyjoe1955 You might wanna read up about state rights. The federal system is in place to protect each state.

@hippyjoe1955 None of that is actually impacted by the electoral college, I'm not sure I understand why you think those things are related. There really are many different protections against tyranny of the majority, this just isn't one of them. Major changes tend to require supermajority of some kind or another - an example of this is the difficulty in passing a constitutional amendment.

Anyway, the father of the system, Alexander Hamilton, lays out the rationale and goal of the electoral college in Federalist 68. You know what's not in there? Tyranny of the majority stuff.

In fact, promoting majority rule is reason #1 - "It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice."

@Qwerty14 You might want to understand majority rule. I live in a Confederation which has 'provincial rights' stronger than State rights in the US. That is until the two most populist provinces sent a majority to parliament and over ruled the lesser populated provinces creating a massive depression that lasted almost 10 years.

@hippyjoe1955 Damn, I keep forgetting you're a Canuck, it's no wonder you don't have a firm handle on the US system.

Look, directly electing the president wouldn't allow the majority to take away states rights willy-nilly in this country. The executive branch doesn't have that privilege. Congress has to do things like that.

@QuixoticSoul I likely have a better handle on the US system than you do. You likely think that the US civil war was about slavery when it was in fact the majority imposing their will on the minority and trampling state's rights in the process. You yanks are pretty thick sometimes.

@hippyjoe1955 The civil war was about preserving the union.

The Southern secession was about slavery, driven by their fear that they would be forced to give it up. No states right were trampled (yet).

These things are somewhat related, but not quite the same.

Seriously though, check out what Hamilton wrote about the electoral college, he is its architect, it's all from the horse's mouth.

@QuixoticSoul It was about state rights. That is why the south was called the Confederates. You yanks are so silly sometimes.

@hippyjoe1955 Did you just call Southerners Yanks? Duuuuuuuude.

#NotAllCanadians