Comments by "Hobbs" (@hobbso8508) on "Supreme Court blocks 'faithless electors'" video.

Pretty sure I'm lecturing someone who thinks the US is not a democracy. If you have democratic principles then by definition you are a democracy for starters. Stating that you have a constitution does nothing to change that you are a democracy. You seem to be confusing direct democracy with democracy. If I vote for a representative, then said representative writes and votes for laws, then that is a representative democracy. I also worry you don't know what a republic actually is.
3
@iwanaorange9231 Perhaps you don't know what a republic is because you've never looked up the definition. The main point of a republic is not having a monarch as the head of state. Both the US and UK have democratically elected representative governments, but the UK has a monarchy and is therefore not a republic.
3
@iwanaorange9231 Not really dancing around, it's irrelevant. If it fits the definition then that's what it is. What's your definition of republic?
3
@harambe893 But the election is already decided by at most 13 of the 50 states, with the safe states like Washington, California, Alabama and Georgia getting thrown by the wayside. Moreover, the 10 most populated cities in the US including their metropolitan areas make up only 20% of the total US population. That leaves 80% of the vote to smaller cities, suburban areas and rural areas. Not that it really matters, because more people live in those larger cities. Why should your vote count for 2 when compared to a Californian? In an effort to stop cities from "taking over" you are just disenfranchising the people in those cities. How about your party appeal to the voters in those areas rather than create a rule and exploit said rule to make their vote worth less? It's almost like a political party should cater more to the electorate rather than the electorate having to change where they live just to make their vote count.
3
The US is a democratic republic. You can be both a democracy and a republic, they are not mutually exclusive.
2
"Because we are not and never have been a democracy."
2
@iwanaorange9231 "The government of Rome was called a republican government." - Correct. It's also a good example of a non-democratic form of republican government. Aristocrats, or patricians as they were known, would be rich land owners. They were considered a whole separate class and were banned from marrying below their own class. They would simply decide between themselves who would be their next leaders, which could not be anyone other than another patrician. The people had virtually no say. So comparing the US government to Rome's republic, while in the same comment talking about the people electing leaders is laughable at best, dangerously ignorant at worst. "The power of government is held by the people." - and specifically not a monarch or aristocracy. "The people give power to leaders they elect to represent them and serve their interests." - These days they do this through democratic elections. In days gone past the the US was by and large less democratic in nature, but they have improved greatly over the decades. I'm not saying the US is a perfect democracy, because it certainly isn't. It has issues such as the electoral college, gerrymandering and senators. All of these are ways in which the US moves further away from treating all votes equally. A more democratic government could segment all people from any state into districts that can cross state lines and group people into their respective interest groups. This would be a better way of electing representatives as said representatives would represent their own area more strongly, and would still be a republic. It would also be more democratic. In this specific form of a republic it would be perfectly reasonable for the president to be either elected or appointed as both would be done by vote, either by the fairly elected representatives or by the people. This is how you could make the US more democratic. If you want to make it less democratic, just ask ancient Rome.
2
@iwanaorange9231 Right. It was a republic that became more democratic, in the same way, as you say, giving the vote to blacks and women, as well as poor people, was a way of making the US republic more democratic. When it was first introduced you'd be hard pressed to call the US democracy. These days however it's far more a democracy than an authoritarian regime.
2
@MrCharles26 Right, which is why they want the majority of the country to decide what's right for the country, not a single state. Aside from the obvious, which is that the states you just listed are 1. not the 3 most populous in the US and 2. less than 30% of the total population of the US, they also regularly vote on opposite sides of the isle. Voters within those states also regularly get ignored because they don't quite make the cut. The last election was won by 80,000 votes in swing states. Maybe pushing for a national popular vote would encourage parties to change their overall directions and appeal to individuals across the nation, not just 80,000 swing voters in half a dozen states.
1