[lordnacho]

> The intent was to create a republic, not a democracy.

I see this repeated so much in online discussions, and it makes no sense to me. Is it enough to not have a monarchy? There's no actual reason why democracy and republic need to be distinguished, because we're almost always talking about a system where people get a say in how they are governed, not whether there's a monarch.

Nobody doubts whether Denmark, Norway, Sweden, The Netherlands or Spain are democracies.

Now to the point about the constitutional issues. Why is it that it's fair for a minority to decide who gets to be leader? To people who've grown up in democratic systems, it certainly seems to be a flaw that it's possible for someone get less support than the loser.

To put it another way, what is having a senate and electoral college that isn't proportional to votes supposed to save you from? Is there a good argument or example of a situation where that made sense?