[drekk]

What democracy exists in the US? You don't vote for your president. The preferences of the American public have a statistically insignificant effect on which legislative policies get passed. Popular suffrage has existed in the country for ~50 years since indigenous women got the vote. Do I even have to get into what total lack of privacy we enjoy in the "free world"? Come on.

I'm tired of Americans comparing anything bad to their geopolitical enemies, especially when Putin was backed by the CIA and MI6 as a useful wedge against communism. You don't get to fuck up the entire world with aggressive state interventions and then act like you're some bastion of democracy. Ask a Chilean what they think about US democracy. Or really anyone for that matter.

[kube-system]

The US is a strong federation of states, not a unitary state. Our presidential election has only a very tiny relevance to the laws passed at the federal level.

The government that most affects Americans day to day life are their state governments, many of which even allow for direct referendums.. of which the US has had thousands of. They are happening all the time, although they are usually local in interest and you usually won’t see them in our national news… unless they are particularly noteworthy:

Maybe you might remember the recent news of the Kansas referendum on abortion? Can’t get any more democratic than that.

(And by the way, several US states approved women’s suffrage before any country did.)

[cvoss]

The American conception of democracy does not, by any means, refer to an ability to get the government to carry out the will of 51% of the populace. It is even specifically designed _not_ to do that, on purpose, for very good reasons. Here are some:

- 51% of people can do wrong against the other 49%.

- 51% of people can do wrong against themselves by making an uninformed decision.

- Tomorrow the 51% become the 49% and vice versa. If unchecked power was given to whoever was currently 51%, it would spell whiplash and chaos.

So you structure the whole thing into smaller deliberative bodies where people (who are periodically selected by 51% majorities) have better information and means to strike good compromises that are unattainable through raw public opinion. A fuller and more appropriate name for this is "a democratic republic", for which "democracy" is used as a shorthand.

Some of these bodies have authority only over local areas, because you can make a more tailored decision when you have fewer things to deal with. Some of these local bodies, as another commenter noted, may conduct referendums to decide whether to make a law. Other bodies have authority over the whole land, but only over coarse-grained topics with only highly limited authority over the smaller local bodies.

And at the highest level, there is one body where people's very local representatives have a vote and another body where people's region-wide representatives have a vote, and these bodies must agree in order to do most things.

And you make one small body almost completely insulated from public opinion so that you can task it with protecting not just 49% from the whims of 51%, but protecting one individual person (yes, even a guilty criminal individual) against the rest of the government and against whatsoever the remaining 330 million people may think of this person.

And yes, the vote for the president is not a raw popular vote. There is a level of indirection through another body that often does, but may not, yield the same result as a popular vote would. But it does not logically follow that Americans do not vote for their president.

And you don't let the president make laws or rule on cases or send the country to war.

The guiding principle is not to let one person or one group of people have too much power. A majority of Americans having consensus on a given issue is one such group whose power is intentionally limited.

Could the whole thing be designed better than it is? Of course. Will people always screw it up no matter how well designed it is? Of course.

[mlyle]

> And yes, the vote for the president is not a raw popular vote. There is a level of indirection through another body that often does, but may not, yield the same result as a popular vote would. But it does not logically follow that Americans do not vote for their president.

I think this is an interesting way the criticism was phrased about the electoral college. I mean, across world governments, it's pretty dang common for the executive of a government to not just be chosen by the populace.

[Dalewyn]

>And yes, the vote for the president is not a raw popular vote. There is a level of indirection through another body that often does, but may not, yield the same result as a popular vote would.

The Electoral College does, in fact, always reflect the popular vote: The popular votes of each respective state.

Critics of the Electoral College fall flat and demonstrate their sheer ignorance because they keep trying to apply the nationwide popular vote when the election for President was never about that.

To explain in more detail for the uninitiated:

A state's Electoral College votes are determined by the state's popular vote, with the winner taking all (except for Oklahoma and Maine which split their EC votes proportionally).

The Electoral College itself is a facsimile of Congress: There are 538 electors because there are 435 Representatives, 100 Senators, and an extra EC-only 2 Senators plus 1 Representative for Washington, D.C..

The Electoral College exists as a means to tally up each state's political will for President in a way that weighs each state's political power appropriately and keep Legislative influence out of an election concerning the Executive. Congress (aka the Legislative) only gets involved in the election if and only if the Electoral College fails to do its job.

Constructive criticism is always welcome, but there are reasons why things are done the way they are. The least anyone can do in the process of criticizing is first understand and respect what they are criticizing.

[kthejoker2]

> that weighs each state's political power appropriately

Define "appropriately" in the context of Wyoming and California.

Also explain what happens if only a single person votes for the same candidate in the 41 states and special districts wth the least EC representation,and 100% of the people in the remaining states vote for the other candidate.

The Electoral College is a hugely flawed mechanism both in terms of reflecting the will of the people vs the will of arbitrary land boundaries, and the actual division of "political power" due to forcing everything to round to the nearest integer and setting a (completely arbitrary) cap on the number of EC votes.

[Dalewyn]

>Define "appropriately" in the context of Wyoming and California.

Appropriately as defined by the Constitution:

* Each state gets Representatives allocated to them according to population, with a minimum of 1 Representative, for proportional representation in the Lower House.

* Each state gets two Senators, for equal representation in the Upper House.

The number of Representatives used to increase on a semi-regular basis as population nationwide increased, but it has now been set to 435 Representatives due to physical constraints of fitting so many Representatives in one room.

The Senate currently has 100 seats to account for the 50 states currently in the union; the seats will increase or decrease anytime the number of states change.

Washington, D.C.'s presence in the Electoral College is a special case. D.C. does not have any representation in neither Houses of Congress because it is not a state, but the EC represents D.C. voters by allocating to it the equivalent number of Senators and Representatives as the smallest state in the union.

This means that, ironically to your arguments, the Electoral College is more representative than Congress because D.C. voters are represented.

>Also explain what happens if only a single person votes for the same candidate in the 41 states and special districts wth the least EC representation,and 100% of the people in the remaining states vote for the other candidate.

If the 41 states plus D.C. have more EC votes than the remaining 9 states, then the winner is whoever garnered those votes. Remember, the President is elected by and represents the states as a collective; the President does not represent the people directly, the people are represented directly by their state's Governor.

A nationwide popular vote removes power from the states, because it means one state's people can unilaterally override the people of another state. The USA is a federation of states, so that is simply not acceptable. Each state is sovereign and each state's will must be represented, so far the best compromise has been re-using Congressional seat appropriations which is something all states agree to work with.

>The Electoral College is a hugely flawed mechanism both in terms of reflecting the will of the people vs the will of arbitrary land boundaries, and the actual division of "political power" due to forcing everything to round to the nearest integer and setting a (completely arbitrary) cap on the number of EC votes.

The Electoral College reflects the will of the people of a given state, because remember: A state's EC votes are determined by the state's popular vote. Just because it doesn't reflect your will ("nationwide popular vote") does not make the Electoral College a "hugely flawed" system. In fact, with regards to working in a country comprising a federation of states, it works marvelously at bringing every state's opinions together.

[ivraatiems]

Look, I'm not out here to argue that the United States is some incredible bastion of freedom on every issue for all time - but arguing that it doesn't deserve a favorable comparison to Russia or China or, yes, Chile, on the democracy front is just nonsense. It's not grounded in facts or reality. Arguing that the US itself isn't governed as a democracy because you don't like how the elected government behaves on the world stage is just a non sequitur. That America did something bad doesn't mean other places aren't worse.

Living in the United States now, as oppressive as it can be, is still living in one of the freest societies that's ever existed in history. You may think I'm saying that because I'm ignorant, but no, I am fully aware of all the ways the US is awful towards minorities of every stripe, of the poverty, of the gun crime, problems with access to healthcare, etc etc etc. I made my original post to criticize the US education system. I know about all of that and the United States is still better to live in than most of the world.

It doesn't mean I wouldn't like it to be better, that I'm not worried about how things are changing, or that everything - or even most things - the US has done are good. But we need to talk about the reality of the situation and you're not.

When my point is "the US should live up to its ideals", arguing "the US will never live up to its ideals no matter what" or "well, other people in X country don't like the US" is just unhelpful.

[peyton]

It’s a codified liberal democracy, as opposed to aristocracy, oligarchy, or autocracy.

You may be confusing democracy with electoral democracy.