NYCPHP Meetup

[Kristina Anderson]

As originally conceived, the United States of America was not 
a "democracy" but a "Constitutional republic".   School kids today are 
taught that these two things are the same, but in fact, they are not.

In a Constitutional Republic, the popular vote, or any executive of 
any governmental branch alone, cannot supersede the Constitution and 
the rights granted therein.  Only an Amendment to the Constitution can 
have this power, and that was never something that was meant to 
be "voted on" in a "general democratic election" where 51% of people 
could exercise a "tyranny of the majority" over the other hapless 
49%.  

[I, personally, would not feel at all comfortable living in a 
true "democracy" where at least 80% of the population were, by any 
standards, borderline illiterate and completely uninformed about 
reality.  The governmental form we now have, which is essentially an 
oligarchy where the "globalists" dictate policy and we have this farce 
of a "two party system" we can "vote for", at least has the benefit of 
being completely unaffected by the "popular vote".]

I belong to a hereditary historical/patriotic society and we are asked 
to swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America -- 
NOT the "elected government" of the United States of America, who 
themselves, in the present day, are not upholding the Constitution and 
the rights granted therein, and in fact from a strictly Constitutional 
standpoint are probably illegitimate. 

-- Kristina 


> sbeam wrote:
>   > So a lot of people don't understand it, and 3 times out of 54 a 
popular vote
> > loser has become president - but elections are not supposed to 
just be a mere 
> > popularity contest anyway.
> 
> But that is what an election in a democracy is supposed to be. The 
majority 
> vote determines the winner, which means the popular vote and not the 
> constellation of some electrocal college. Especially not since the 
rules for 
> allocating the popular vote to the constellation of the members of 
the EC 
> varies by state. Some have a winner takes it all approach while 
others follow 
> more closely the will of the people.
> 
> I understand the benefits of it alright, but I am disturbed by 
calling this 
> then a democratic process, because it is not. It skews the results 
and gives 
> some rural vote more weight. That doesn't follow the one person one 
vote idea, 
> which doesn't even apply with the EC in the middle. There is nothing 
that 
> mandates that the EC members of one state have to follow the 
majority decision 
> of the voters. So if 80% in state A vote for candidate 1 the EC 
members of 
> that state can all vote for candidate 2. How is this a fair and 
democratic 
> process? It is like me hiring you to do my work, but not givinh you 
any of my 
> salary - or commonly known as scam.
> I agree that the cases where the EC member(s) voted differently than 
expected 
> are not that many, but just having this possibility designed into 
the system 
> is a major flaw. And that is why many people who do well understand 
the 
> process don't understand why a country like the USA still employ 
such a 
> process that may have made sense 200 years ago. I guess it is kept 
in place as 
> it is much easier to bribe only a bunch of people than the whole 
population.
> 
> David
> _______________________________________________
> New York PHP Community Talk Mailing List
> http://lists.nyphp.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
> 
> NYPHPCon 2006 Presentations Online
> http://www.nyphpcon.com
> 
> Show Your Participation in New York PHP
> http://www.nyphp.org/show_participation.php