America's political system is immensely flawed

1.The key difference between a democracy and a republic lies in the limits placed on government by the law, which has implications on minority rights. Both forms of government use a representational system where citizens vote to elect politicians to represent their interests and form the government. However, in a republic, a constitution or charter of rights protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if it has been elected by a majority of voters. In a pure democracy, the majority is not restrained and can impose its will on the minority (as your link so caringly pointed out). What I meant in my previous argument was that, while a republic is not in full terms A ,,democracy' it works on the principals of Demos Kratein. The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy and thus concludes point one of our argument. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies ,,have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths' 2.As I said, the reasons of third party candidates are mostly since the pulic is afraid of the ,,lesser of two evils' win (their preferred of the two parties). If one were to, say, vote for the libertarian party, that would prevent the votes from going to the republican party, thus, the opposition (the democrats) would win. When a third-party opens up an idea of their own, the larger parties more often than not pass them along as their own(see: Plagiarism). It is true that several third parties have gotten seats in the congress and house of representatives, even some governors, but never in the history of the U.S.A. Has a third-party candidate been elected president...The reason, as I have pointed out-THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. Let's assume that what you say is true and the electoral college does represent the needs of the constituency, that still wouldn't be enough to elect the third-party candidates...The voters aren't acquainted with the parties and the electors already support one party or another... 3.The argument in this point is resolved in the previous statement. 4.1.Firstly, it's obvious you copied and pasted this, as it says. In last week's election... Obama was elected almost a year ago, if not more. But nonetheless, I shall continue with my argument. As an answer to your copied argument, I would like to point out that I proposed a different system. You slander a system in which the popular vote NATIONWIDE would decide who the inaugurated official would be. What I proposed was different. I proposed it to be statewide, so that the percentage that a candidate achieved in a state would eventually count to his entirety. My idea of the system is of course flawed and you might say even hypocritical as I have stated before that the results of the election should be that of the popular vote, rather than the percentage of states. That is why I would categorize the states. A larger state with a larger population might count more than a smaller one with a smaller population. [1] This system would be LIKE the electoral college, except there would be no direct representatives to elect the president. You might say that this system is too complicated, that the categorizations would not work, since the population of every state is different. Exactly why the categorization should be effective! If the views of one small state would reflect just as much as that of a larger one (like with the electoral college) the popular vote would, once again, have nothing to do with the election. Thus: categorizing the states into 51 categories would assure a just result (look up [1]). You might ask for citations. Unfortunately, I found no site that advises this system which I proposed, so I will thereafter refer you to a link, which states why the electoral college doesn't function as many would want it to. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...) 2. EXACTLY! what you describe here is the exact essence of the electoral college. The views of one region choosing the president (if you believe that this is also a problem within my system, think again. Remember, categorization and plural choice). Electors tend to already be convinced. Therefore, if a southern elector would support romney, all the southern electors would support Romney. This ,,Everybody's president' that you mention is simply stating that the only just way to decide who the president should be is through popular vote, not representative votes... Once again, [2]I feel the need point out that we're really dealing with the votes of 538 individuals who don't care about the view of their constituency, rather their own lobbies and ideologies... 3.The swing states have nothing to do with disproving my point of the two flaws (the college and the two-party system), they are just a representation of where the candidates provide more effort, thus I will not refute this, as it has nothing to do with my point. What we have here is a rebuttal of someone else's statement. I said that the college has flaws and I pointed them out, the swing states were not among them. Another ascept I fail to notice is the connection between the college and the swing states...All you mentioned in this paragraph was the popular vote and the fact that the candidates already have areas secure (thanks to the electors...) 4.This argument only serves my point further as you point out that the electors in small states aren't given the same level of power as the ones in the larger states are. As you say that the marginal victory in Florida would bring 29 electoral votes and the one in Wyoming would bring in 3 electoral votes, it serves my point further by proving that the college is only an obstacle of democratic voting, again, remember what I said about electors (look up [2] in paragraph 4.2). This argument only furthers my claim of categorization of states working better than the college. While I do see the point of the college stabilizing the populus, we must still consider the facts that were pointed out before as well as the fact that even with the popular vote or the system I propose, the voting percentage would not change. If we are to assume that a smaller state is represented by three electors and that a larger one is represented by twenty-nine, the vote would not change if the electoral votes were cut off-popular vote. The electoral votes are purely an obstacle to say the least (lest we forget [2]) 5.Again, this argument proves my system right. The system I propose would prevent run-off elections (51 is an od number, impossible to get it 50% 50% and again-categorization). And it isn't the electoral college that prevents these ,,run-offs' but rather the two-round system, which you forgot/failed to mention. In the case that both candidates receive the same percentage of votes or one of the candidates doesn't reach the absolute majority, there is a second round of voting. Unfortunately, america does not house the two-round system and thus-the major flaws. This following statement completely shatters the logic of the entire argument: elector run-offs are far more possible than national run-offs... are you actually impying that 538 people are far less likely to split completely 50% 50% than the entire COUNTRY? filled with MILLIONS...These run-offs could be resolved in a much simpler way->the two-round sytem... If you state that one-sided states are a problem because they are already decided who their vote is going to, so what? It's all the population. The fact is that the head representative should be elected by the people he governs, if the country is already decided, let them be, it's what they want... The elector vote actually provides the problem that your argument provides. The pre-decided individual...The elector will vote however he pleases, never looking at the political orientation of the state. The college is nothing more than an obstacle and a tainted institution 6. I'm sorry, I was not aware. 7. My system is not based on proof, it is based on my own opinion. The same could be said about your debate on morals. If it's citations you seek, then citations you shall receive. 1.http://www.huffingtonpost.ca... two party system 2.http://www.huffingtonpost.com... elector college This took A LONG time to write...It was way harded than yours seeing as you copied 80% of that site :P good luck -benko