Let's talk of gerrymandering

[ddstory]

"America is not a democracy, it's a republic". I've heard this adage way too often, and it has boggled me at times, admittedly. I mean, what's wrong with direct democracy?

Let's look at this.

Comments

[htpcl]

From the last link:

"Did you know that in 48 states, a candidate can choose electors based on a pledge to vote for the opposing candidate, if the opposing candidate is in a better position than she or he is to win the Electoral College?"

*Scratches head*

We're still talking about democratic elections here, right?...

[ddstory]

It's present in the name of the party, so that must be the case.

[htpcl]

What's democratic about a superdelegate pledging their vote to Hillary well in advance to the election, if I've elected them to represent me, and I haven't made up my mind about whom to vote for yet? What's democratic about someone deciding for me?

[htpcl]

How do they represent me, my stances and my decisions on a particular issue, including who I want to be the presidential nominee of the party? No one has asked me if I prefer candidate A or B. They just make an assumption that all their constituents would want candidate A? What if I want candidate B? How am I represented?

This is oligarchy.

[htpcl]

Still sounds like an oligarchic elite picking my decisions for me. Especially if I'm not a party member.

[htpcl]

What if I don't want to have anything to do with any party? Why should I have to join a party so that my vote could matter at all?

No, you're certainly not going to convince me that the current system of the electoral college is representative enough for the entire populace. It terribly reeks of the orchestrated type of political process that we're having here - the only difference is that our elites are doing it behind closed doors, while in your case the whole thing has been institutionalized.

Why need all these complex electoral systems? Why can't everyone just vote and all votes go into the same pot, and then be counted? Why was George W Bush elected president in 2000, even though he had half a million votes less than his opponent?

[htpcl]

You see now why these electoral votes don't make any sense to me. The president is a president of all Americans, not of the electoral college. Choosing a president of all Americans is not something that is a matter that every state decides for themselves. It should be a matter that every American decides for themselves. Congress election is one thing. But electing a president should be happening in the simplest way possible: put all votes in one pot, and then count them. Why should this be so complicated?

[htpcl]

> In theory, he's not supposed to have direct connection to the popular vote at all

Well, that sucks. Because his executive actions have a direct connection to all the people, not just some party elites.

[htpcl]

Well, not really.