Why do we have the electoral college? See the YouTube video for answer.
Also, electing the president directly =/= "direct democracy" or "pure democracy".
"The Electoral College protects against tyranny of the majority."
I have never understood this claim. If you believe majority rule is bad because it alienates a huge portion of voters, then the logical next step is that minority rule is even worse, seeing as how it does the exact same thing to a greater extent. So, a system that not only makes majority rule possible, but also makes minority rule possible, should be despised by those who are against "tyranny of the majority".
Furthermore, In that PragerU video, they say that it's okay for the election to be decided by a few swing states, because the swing states are constantly changing. But using this same reasoning, majority rule is perfectly okay, because the majority is constantly changing. The 49% can easily become the 51% in the next election.
Thank you so much. You're the first person who has ever brought up the "tyranny by majority vs minority" thing. I have never understood why people act like allowing the minority to decide what the majority does is better than the other way around. Neither are right, but id at least have what the majority wants bc then it's an ultimate net positive.
In Federalist 10, James Madison tells us why the Framers chose a representative democracy, a republic, rather than a pure, direct, democracy as the form of government for our new nation. He defined a "pure democracy" as "a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person." He defined a "republic" as "a government in which the scheme of representation takes place." These were the only two choices. By definition the "pure democracy" was disqualified. The new nation was too large in geographical area and in population for the citizens to "assemble and administer the government in person." But there was one more difficulty with pure democracies. Mr. Madison said: (Cont.)....
"A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such [pure] democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
I take Mr Madison's words to mean that "pure" democracies, by their very nature, inevitably trample individual rights and oppress minorities. I think he is saying that the small size of the pure democracy enables the citizens to communicate face-to-face and this will cause passions, rather than reason, to dominate action. A charismatic, forceful leader, I think, can take over the discussion and direct the group to whatever ends he may desire. Tyranni are certainly more forceful than liberti and, given the opportunity and the talents, are more likely to gain power in such a situation. If a tyrannus should gain control of a pure democracy then the government is a democracy no longer.....
"He defined a "pure democracy" as "a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person.""
In no way does this describe a system in which presidents are elected by the popular vote. The president already serves as the representative of the people. The people would not administer the government in person. The president would continue to make decisions on behalf of the people, like signing/vetoing bills and deciding how best to enforce our laws. So already you are setting yourself up for a strawman. Using the popular vote to elect the president =/= pure/direct democracy.
There is no way it could be "administered" in person, and it becomes "passion" not reason that guides.......hence, the purpose of a republic and not a direct type.....
"There is no way it could be "administered" in person"
That was part of the definition you gave me. So what you are saying is that a direct democracy is not even possible.
The end results is key....."passion" not "reason"......has the end result of the Nov. 08th election not demonstrated this very instance and point.....?.....
This election was not decided by the people, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
I remember hearing the term "Law Of The Land" for a memorable time not so long ago, and it was accepted as such, some "reason" but mostly "passion" driven, yet the people were not given any choice, yet it was "The Law Of The Land" none the less, the current Electoral College is the Law, it was not like no one knew it was not, Presidential elections are held every 4 years, no surprises, why no respect for this, or reason?.....
The first word spoken in the video are "In a fair democracy". The only problem with this is we are not a true democracy but a constitutional republic. Since we are a constitutional republic the founders understood the troubles of a democracy opposed upon it people. So your video only outlines what it believes the election should be held based on popular vote. It doesn't prove the popular vote would be the best political system for the country but what it does prove is that a constitutional republic allows everyone all 50 states and the District of Columbia their fair voice on Election Day.
The words "In a fair democracy" do not suggest that the US is a democracy.
The entire video suggest that the United States political system is a "fair democracy" when it is not, it is a constitutional republic.
I already know, but it may be good for those who obviously do not!.....
That's why I posted the video, because a lot of people do not have a clue.
Thanks for trying to cure people's ignorance 😀