USA Democracy (America, mission, legislation)

[Rex]

We the people vote on a slate.

Each slate is represented by an electoral college chose by that slate.


But that electoral college representative doesn't have to vote for that slate.



So does our vote really count?

[Engyo]

If I am not mistaken, the requirement for electors to follow the popular vote is regulated by state law; and the requirements differ from state to state.

While we are not a direct representive democracy, the system has worked and is still (relatively) working.

I would be much happier though, if I felt that any of the candidates for national office actually represented my views. That rarely happens. I am usually voting against a particular candidate, rather than for one.

[Alaric]

What I can't understand is why you don't have proportional representation - why couldn't Nader and Gore form a coalition government with their majority? The way you have it now, it's not the majority that wins, its the party with the most votes; meaning that each party's program is so broad it's almost meaningless. Although, the primaries might make up for this somewhat.

[Engyo]

Alaric -

We do have proportional representation - in the House of Representatives. We don't have it in the Executive Branch. The Senate has equal representation state-by-state (2 votes each).

For all the noise made about all of this, as rulers go (historically), the US President has fairly limited powers. He can't initiate legislation, he can only suggest it. He can veto legislation, but the Congress can override him. He is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, but he does not have the power to declare war on his own.

At the time this system was laid out, I don't believe there were many (any?) parliamentary democracies of the type you describe. Primarily this design was in response to British limited monarchy and the effects the colonists had felt from that system. There were also great differences in education and literacy levels, communication and mass media technology, and so on. Unfortunately, once these kinds of things are enshrined, they quickly become entrenched and crusted over to the point that the effort required to change them is prohibitive (as long as the populace remains relatively satisfied).

[Runt]

Originally Posted by Engyo

For all the noise made about all of this, as rulers go (historically), the US President has fairly limited powers. He can't initiate legislation, he can only suggest it. He can veto legislation, but the Congress can override him. He is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, but he does not have the power to declare war on his own.

Aye, but the powers of the president have grown since the executive office was created, because of expansion of the country, the growing expectations of the American people fueled by a greater population and the media, and a variety of other reasons.

He can't initiate legislation, but as you said, he can suggest it. He also has the unofficial power of patronage: "Hey, if you do this for me I'll do this for you." Furthrmore, he has the ability to veto legislation, and thus the THREAT of a veto can force Congress to do what he wants.

He cannot declare war on his own, but he CAN commit our troops to a conflict for 90 days without the permission of Congress (War Powers Resolution). And a lot of damage can be done in 90 days...

He can also undermine the justice system by pardoning criminals (any criminals he wants), temporarily stopping a sentance (this is called a repreves, right?) or reducing sentences.

[Colin_Admin]

eww this topic could go on and on and on. But I dont belive that we the people have any say so in how the president is elected. But we do when it comes to state and municiple candidacy.