Sure I do, direct elections aren’t the only type available to representative democracies. Allowing an unelected member of the judicial branch to bar candidates from federal office is antidemocratic and (more importantly in this case) unconstitutional.
No you don’t, if you’re being honest. No system which allows itself to act against the will of its people can be said to democratic at the most basic definition of the word, regardless of which specific type of democracy it is.
Also it’s funny you talk about representative democracy, when the people who actually vote for the President- the electoral college- aren’t elected by voters.
the only reason the US was considered a democracy was because the electoral college tended to vote along popular lines anyway. If Trump wins again he won’t win the popular vote. Between the electoral college, the broken nature of the senate, and the gerrymandering of the house… its not a democracy now, for sure.
Here’s what’s interesting though. The constitution itself sets several rather arbitrary qualifications for the office of president, so clearly they didn’t think that limiting people’s choices by making some candidates illegal was anti-democratic. They decided that the will of the people could not be permitted if it were to elect someone too young, or foreign born. It is anti-democratic, but it’s also fully constitutional. The constitution was written by several people who were rather skeptical of democracy and sought to limit its influence.
Calling it now, he is found guilty but can’t serve time due to being “mentally unfit” to be imprisoned.
So can he still serve as president if he’s mentally unable to be imprisoned? I bet they’ll say yes. And by they I mean SCrOTUS.
Yes, competency is up to the electorate, as it should be. Anything else is antidemocratic and a horrible idea.
You don’t get to argue what is or isn’t democratic when the system allows for the most-popular candidate to lose.
Sure I do, direct elections aren’t the only type available to representative democracies. Allowing an unelected member of the judicial branch to bar candidates from federal office is antidemocratic and (more importantly in this case) unconstitutional.
No you don’t, if you’re being honest. No system which allows itself to act against the will of its people can be said to democratic at the most basic definition of the word, regardless of which specific type of democracy it is.
Also it’s funny you talk about representative democracy, when the people who actually vote for the President- the electoral college- aren’t elected by voters.
the only reason the US was considered a democracy was because the electoral college tended to vote along popular lines anyway. If Trump wins again he won’t win the popular vote. Between the electoral college, the broken nature of the senate, and the gerrymandering of the house… its not a democracy now, for sure.
Here’s what’s interesting though. The constitution itself sets several rather arbitrary qualifications for the office of president, so clearly they didn’t think that limiting people’s choices by making some candidates illegal was anti-democratic. They decided that the will of the people could not be permitted if it were to elect someone too young, or foreign born. It is anti-democratic, but it’s also fully constitutional. The constitution was written by several people who were rather skeptical of democracy and sought to limit its influence.
Followed by 60 million + Americans still voting for him.
Who also wouldn’t be fit to serve under office. I see stupid electing stupid.
The question is, how do you have so many of those people.
They’re not all stupid. Some of them are just horrible assholes.
deleted by creator