Someone wrote, "Among the points it would
make is that it is inadequate to use the notion of "Republic" as
trumping "Democracy" - or many tacit versions of this notion:
whether based on the history, evolution and theoretical
underpinnings of the US political system and its constitution. We
need to look at the underlying merits (rather than presenting
certain kinds of fact as if they, without further ado, constitute
adequate justification)."
I don't think "trumping 'democracy'" is a valid concept. Our form
of government is a Republic and we use democratic means for
electing our electors. Behind the elector concept, something I
didn't mention in my previous note, is the idea that the people au
naturale are subject to demigods. The 18th century "founding
fathers" didn't trust the gullibility of the ordinary citizen who
got to vote. So perhaps if you want to enter into the United
States experience and argue that the electoral college ought to be
done away with by an amendment of the constitution, and this is
true even though no one believes that you could get something like
2/3 or 3/4 of the states to vote for such an amendment, you would
want to show that the American people today aren't as gullible and
easily influenced as their 18th century predecessors. I would be
very interested in such an argument for I myself could not make
one. Our ordinary citizens seem to me at least as gullible and
perhaps even more so than their 18th century predecessors.
Perhaps the electors don't debate the choices before them, but
they could, and at least once did in the case of Hayes vs Tilden
for the good of the country, or at least the good of the South by
making the end of Reconstruction as part of the deal. There are
three million signatures thus far on the petition intended by
die-hard Hillery followers to be presented to the electors in hope
they will over-turn the Trump victory. Hillary herself (from all
reports I've seen) on the other hand has conceded defeat and is
moving on. But not even the Democrats aren't saying that the pure
popular vote "trumps" the electoral college mediation.
Further down you write, "Without going further in the merits and
demerits of the current US system, I do not think Lawrence's
comments about the "Republic" and its relation to "Democracy"
amount to anything like an adequate defence of that current US
'electoral college' system on the merits.
That such comments may suit Republicans for the purpose of
defending the recent outcome is, frankly, neither here nor there
as far as the true underlying merits are concerned. (Fwiw, we may
bet what Trump would be saying if he had won the popular vote but
lost the 'electoral college'; and what he might be saying to
protestors against Clinton.)"
You should probably rephrase this to some extent because I don't
think our form of government needs a "defense." We developed the
first modern democracy and all those in the west and elsewhere
followed our model to some extent. Francis Fukuyama decided upon
the term "Liberal democracy" to encompass the Western nations and
those others such as Japan and South Korea who have been
influenced by our systems. Fukuyama, an American, doesn't find it
necessary (at least in the books by him that I've read) to rehash
the details of our voting system. He bases his devinition upon
the particular freedoms that we enjoy. Our Bill of Rights was
something else adopted to a greater or lesser extent. Nations
where citizens have these rights and freedoms are considered
"Liberal Democracies." Notice that while the United States
considers itself a "Republic", Britain with most of the same
rights and freedoms and considered a "Liberal Democracy" by
Fukuyama calls itself a "Constitutional Monarchy." Are there
some in Britain who want to get rid of Monarchy in a similar
fashion to those in the U.S. who want to get rid of the Electoral
College system? As it happens there are.
The British and German people don't get to vote directly for their
Prime Ministers. Have they need a defense of their systems?
I scrolled down several times to see who was responsible for the
following site but my computer kept locking up. In any case the
distinctions it present between Republics and Democracies seem . .
. valid: http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment