Does the popular vote mean anything in a Constitutional Republic?

Does the popular vote mean anything in a Constitutional Republic?

Obviously not. If it was a significant proportion I'm sure there would be ramifications.

why do Americans keep thinking that "republic" and "democracy" are opposite terms somehow? I read that it has something to do with "republican vs democrat" but it's so painfully obvious that they don't contradict each other

Yeah, I mean it's still a popular vote but in the districts - counties - states and such, further on the electoral system takes care of probable case of 3-5 states deciding the whole election

pretty good tbqh

FUCK DEMOCRACY

We republic now

No, otherwise rural and suburban retards would never win.

Especially since Hillary won the popular vote in 2008 against Obama and no one batted an eye. Not to mention the millions of illegals who'll naturally vote for the Dems anyway. Should popular vote be eradicated from the voting system?

An excuse to avoid looking into you strategy or admit that you've done anything wrong that lead to your victory.

Also, pushing it hard enough and consistently enough pushes the people's idea of the US government away from a federalism.

Depends on the laws of the particular republic.
In your case, no, it doesn't.

American don't think they're opposite terms, rather they're correcting people that falsely assume our country is a pure democracy.

Indeed. The distinction is important though because 'democracy' alone implies direct democracy which is not the case.

Republic vs Democracy actually strangely enough has nothing to do with the party names
When it's brought up it's just to point out that we elect representatives to vote on laws, we don't vote on the laws ourselves

What's up with the Bosnian flag

but there isn't a single direct democracy in the world, even Switzerland has elected representatives. So why even make the distinction?

There isn't a single true republic in the world either. The terms are abstractions when used alone but the US is closer to a republic than a democracy.

Because Americans are retards

The "national popular vote" is not a thing that exists in the US. It's a made up thing.
The so-called "US Presidential Election" is actually 51 completely seperate Electoral College elections.
And without an actual national election, there is no national vote.

city faggots shouldn't even be allowed to vote.

>So why even make the distinction?
Because there are people in this country that think popular vote is enough to win anything. There are people in this country that think we are a pure democracy because they never paid attention in middle school.

see

...

It literally doesn't.

>normie memes

Okay, listen up ladies...
The United States of America is a Representative Republic, not a democracy (except at local levels for levy and tax votes). Federally though we are a Representative Republic to ensure that smaller states with smaller populations would have their voices/votes impact the elections through the Electoral College and it's (intended to be impartial) delegates. However, as in pure capitalism vs crony capitalism, corruption can destroy the best, and honest laid plans.

We used to have rules in place to specifically prevent the rural south from dominating the government. It was called the Three-Fifths Compromise.

>think we are a pure democracy because they never paid attention in middle school.

why do we elect senators, representatives, state governors, hell, every other elected leader, by a pure democracy? other than the founding fathers notions about small states, etc., what's different about all the other offices?

The constitution sets the rules in a constitutional republic, the rules according to the constitution state that we don't elect the president via popular vote. The answer to your question is yes.

absolutely dreadful...

Actually it means no. My bad.

yes, if you get the popular vote in a county you win it.

trump won the popular vote in 9% of the counties or some shit and won the popular vote across 49 states.

...

...

State level vs country level. The president is the only position off the top of my head that requires more than a single state to agree on.
Typically country level posts are given out freely by the president such as with the supreme court so this method isn't required.

Because /you/ elect those for /your/ state. The president does not represent any state in particular. If you had a prime minister, or equivalent position, they would have to be elected either by an electoral college as well.

I think plenty of people have to be approved by Congress, including SCOTUS judges

>Bong hivemind.

R O P E
O
P
E

>Constitutional Republic
I don't think you know what those words mean.

Think about it this way:
Popular vote doesn't have any effect on those elected by congress.

No. If presidential elections based solely on popularity, only a handful of places would be represented and every other place in the country would be ignored.

>every other place in the country would be ignored.

a popularly elected president would have no more power over the senate and house than he does now; they are the ones who are supposed to look out for state and regional needs.

so if a president were popularly elected and tried to favor the coasts (as if they aren't already), the senators from wyoming and idaho could band together with other small state senators and wreck his agenda.

Would still disproportionately represent coasts and cities. Without the Electoral College all three powers would be under California rule (since the executive controls a large part of the judicial). Under EC both the executive and judicial branches are now more representative while the legislative retains minority representation in the senate.

if social security wasn't going broke wouldn't it be able to pay out all eligible americans indefinitely?

how is that obvious?

the definitions of the two words don't contradict each other at all, in fact many definitions of "democracy" include the phrase "elected representatives" i.e. a republic

democracy means majority rule, no?

Nope. She was not campaigning for the popular vote. Neither of them were. That's why they strategically visited certain states. That was the game they were playing. This is why she spent so much time in places like North Carolina and Nevada for minority votes in those states while Trump spent so much time in the Rust Belt where is message resonated.

To make the popular vote mean something we would require a whole new election cycle with both candidates knowing that this was a race for the popular vote and campaigning for it.

it means the people (or some number of them) decide on policy, either directly or indirectly through representatives

why do people think democracy means majority rule?

because a modern democracy includes almost 100% of the adult population so if most people want somebody in power they almost always get it

Depends on what the constitution says about it.

but people seem to believe this as a matter of logic
i've heard several say trump winning with less than a majority of the votes is by definition undemocratic

it's a semantic debate, there isn't one right answer

>Churchillquote.jpg

If a majority of people decide men no longer have any rights whatsoever and must be enslaved, does a free, democratic country follow through with the wishes of the majority? Does a Constitutional Republic?

What if young people become so fed up with baby boomers, they decide all old people must be stripped of their wealth, does a free and democratic country proceed with that seizure and redistribution of wealth? Does a Constitutional Republic?

If a future America, hispanic majority by the next few decades, decides to make homosexuality illegal through a majority vote, does a Constitutional Republic send them all to concentration camps?

The US a civilized, constitutional republic, and the opinion of the majority means jack shit in many cases such as the Presidential Election - for good reason.

okay, i disagree but thanks for your input

you think that quote is the explanation?

No. Mob rule is fucking retarded.

She probably got a couple million votes from illegals, felons, and dead people anyway. It the only way a Democrat can ever win any election.

it means nothing in most countries, in most democracies only the house has real power and everything else is ceremonial, Justin got like 40% of the vote for example.

Th US is just awkward because their president isn' just for ceremonial purposes and is effectively voted in like a prime minister(you vote for the voters).

Not in this one.

It means lots of illegals voted in commiefornia

DISGUSTING

That isn't a democracy, you fool. Democracies do NOT elect representatives, that is purely a function of a form of republic.

Democracies, true ones anyway, rely on the citizens having a direct voice in politics. Because everyone's opinion has to be considered, the entire political process will take exponentially longer as you increase the population. This is why there hasn't been a true democracy since the times of city-states: the population of modern day states is simply too large for the operation of a true democracy.

This isn't fucking hard.

>mfw leftists cry for popular vote
>mfw the popular vote would give UKIP 12% of the british parliament

Actually it was rednecks all over the U.S. illegally voting 5 times each while the Republican party conspired with them.

See, I too can make up lies on the internet with no basis in reality.

Go look up the various counties vote manipulation during the Dem primary. It wasn't as obvious or widespread during the general election, but they didn't care to be sneaky for their primary.

To deny vote manipulation when there are examples of dead people voting all across the country is ignorance at its finest.

Not

>Namefag
>Facebook nigger memes

the rousey picture isnt even from 2016

Analyzing the aggregate vote of an election based around a state electoral vote makes no logical sense

...

the answer, of course, is yes assuming the government doesn't draw out more than it puts in

>tfw government trusts don't last because they overdraft them by extending benefits to those who shouldn't get them.

On a state by state basis to acquire electoral votes, yes.

to be fair rousey's was the worst performance of the year. at least hillary put up a fight before getting btfo

That was to prevent you from buying more slaves to have more votes. you dont want people with more slaves to have more power, do you?

Wrong
California's vote does not count in fact it helped hillary win the popular vote.
If California was not a state here is what the votes would be like.

>popular vote
>she won

The meme that never ends

On a state by state basis, The electoral college was made to ensure no one state became too powerful after all.

>if the most important state in America and possibly the world did not vote, the results would have been different

k thanks

Hillary didn't get a majority of the popular vote. Libertarians would have voted Trump in a French runoff situation.

Finally Someone gets it

Do you want these two circles which are predominantly blue to dominate every election? It's either this or the electoral college.