maximus wrote:
If you look at article 2 of the U S Constitution you can see that the states are supposed to choose e*****rs to represent their state at the e*******l college for the purpose of choosing (electing) a president for the union. This means that the states elect the president not the people.
Not quite true. In Federalist Papers #68, Hamilton wrote the following:
"It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.
It was equally desirable, that the immediate e******n should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations."This says to me that the people elected to the E*******l College should be the best and brightest from their areas, not the most partisan. We have to remember that at the time of the Constitution, most people had never been further than fifty miles from where they were born, and their knowledge of politics and government was minimal. This was an attempt by the founders to get away from the populist roar and try to elect the most capable person to run the country.
Thus, the state does not elect the E*******l College, the people do.
Quote:
It also says in article 2 that the method for selecting e*****rs is left to each individual state.
True only in the way that the states control how the e*****rs are selected. This means that some states have a "winner take all" version of se******n, while others are allotted proportionally by district.
Quote:
This means that it isn't necessary for the states or for the union to hold a p**********l e******n where people v**e.
Not true. As indicated above, the people do v**e for the e*****rs, but it is supposed to be a non-partisan issue. There is no choice as to whether a p**********l e******n can be held (there isn't) or whether the people are entitled to v**e for their e*****rs (they are).
Quote:
The president represents the union and is elected by the states,People are represented in the legislative branch of government. The president is not supposed to represent the people. In fact if there were to be a conflict of interest between the union and the people it is the presidents job to represent the union, the welfare of the union, the defense of the nation and the fiscal health of the nation.
Not exactly. The president does represent the union, but is indirectly elected by the people of the various states. Their job is to "faithfully administer the laws of the United States" as is stated in the oath of office. They're effectively the CEO of the United States of America LLC. There can be no conflict of interest in the laws as passed by Congress and administered by the president.
Quote:
The state governments are democracies. The federal government is a republic. A republic doesn't require one man one v**e but can elect the chief of state by other than a popular v**e. The e*****rs meet at their respective state capitols and the majority rules. Who ever wins the v**e is how the state v**es for the president. That is winner takes all. The president and vice president are our only offices filled by this method. Everyone who represents people is elected by a direct v**e of those people. That is why we have a type of republic for the federal government. If you dispute that we are a republic repeat the pledge of allegiance.
The state governments are democracies. The federal... (
show quote)
Kinda sorta. Some states have proportional allocation … some have winner take all.
States are actually independent entities that are sovereign within their own borders. The federal government (as in a federation) is an umbrella entity which is governed by a Constitution that all the states have agreed to abide by. The states fashioned their governments largely after the federal one, but that doesn't mean that they actually have to do that. The Civil War was partially fought over this very principle that they could secede from the Union.
It used to be that the states appointed the Senate to represent the state at the federal level (somewhat like ambassadors with v****g rights), and the House of Representatives actually was the voice of the people. This was changed by the Seventeenth Amendment, which allowed the popular e******n of Senators after a huge corruption scandal in the southern states.
Quote:
Myself, I always wondered how we can be a democracy AND a republic....well this is how that is so.
It is indeed both and in this you are quite correct.
My apologies for being so long winded.