I have some questions #Offtopic:
First, how can America be a Democratic country when the president was elected with a minority of the popular vote? [spoiler] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-lost-popular-vote-hillary-clinton-us-election-president-history-a7470116.html[/spoiler] How is it possible the majority party in the senate represents a minority of of the the total population of the United States, and the same is true for the house of representatives? [spoiler] https://www.economist.com/briefing/2018/07/12/americas-electoral-system-gives-the-republicans-advantages-over-democrats[/spoiler]
How can there states where a party with a majority of party votes has less control over the state legislator compared to the actual legislative majority? [spoiler] https://www.denverpost.com/2017/06/25/gerrymandering-2016-election/[/spoiler]
I call into question the legitimacy of not only the current “majority” party into question but the entire governmental system. How can a system that allows corporate interests to literally write laws, and disregards public opinion a legitimate governmental system? [spoiler] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/04/how-corporate-lobbyists-conquered-american-democracy/390822/[/spoiler] [spoiler] https://www.dancarlin.com/common-sense-home-landing-page/[/spoiler]
What legitimacy does a government that claims to exist in support of the people and by the people but instead is run by international corporations and banks which completely ignore public opinion? A country where the majority party hold a minority population? I ask, honestly. How does anybody reconcile the hypocrisy of such a system?
Edit: As I have seen the same comment used over and over I’m simply going to address it within this edit. First, this topic is discussing the MERITS of the political system, not asking WHAT the political system is. I am not saying America has X political system. I am saying the way the political system currently operates is not only a failure, but in total contradiction to the founding principles of the founding documents of the country. Saying: “America is a democratic republic” does not address my criticisms of the system, and it generally misses the point. Thank you.
-
Edited by Cozyman Cam: 10/13/2018 6:16:51 PMAccording to Politico (https://www.politico.com/mapdata-2016/2016-election/results/map/president/), Clinton had 62,523,126 votes nationally and Trump had 61,201,031 votes nationally in the 2016 general election. Clinton led the national popular vote by 1,322,095 votes. Now let us look at the popular vote in California, Clinton had 5,589,963 votes and Trump had 3,021,095 votes. Clinton led the California popular vote by 2,568,868 votes. Clinton's lead in California was 1,246,773 greater than her lead nationally. A pure democracy would only increase the bias toward the, already favored, interests of urban folk more so. It's already very inconvenient to be required to abide by legislation written in the urban context while utterly neglecting the rural context. We do not need anymore of it. We, rural folk, would eventually be reduced to a new servant class beckoning to the every whim of our urban masters. For now, I prefer our democratic republic because it softens the favor toward the interests of those living in densly populated areas. Really, both the Republican Party and the Democrat Party are guilty of placing their own interests above the interests of those they claim to represent. My only solution would be to impose consecutive term limits for both congress and the President. I would imagine the constitutional amendment would be similar to the effect of[spoiler]Amendment XXVIII 1. No person shall be elected to the office of representative more than thrice consecutively. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of representative, when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of representative, or acting as representative, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of representative or acting as representative during the remainder of such term. 2. No person shall be elected to the office of senator more than twice consecutively, and no person who has held the office of senator, or acted as senator, for more than three years of a term to which some other person was elected senator shall be elected to the office of senator more than once consecutively. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of senator, when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of senator, or acting as senator, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of senator or acting as senator during the remainder of such term. 3. The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed. 4. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice consecutively, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once consecutively. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President, when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term. 5. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.[/spoiler]