no it isn't it is a different form of governance altogether. Athens was a democracy. The united states is a republic, germany is a republic, france is a republic etc.

Edited 1/24/2016 22:35:00

Athens was not different than other republics. People were voted to positions of power and lead the country.

Edited 1/24/2016 22:47:11

WRONG! Elected officials were mostly bureaucrats/soldiers. The people voted directly on major issues.

LOL you trust uninformed American voters to run a democracy?! What a joke. Keep the electoral college. Its the hallmark of our Republic.

If you had a pure democratic system you would have essentially 30% of the population running the country. Check this out: normal voter turnout in Presidential Election years is 60%. It only takes 50%+1 of the electorate to choose a president. That means: .60(.51) = 31.1% of the population would decide the outcome of an election every 4 years. If you think the electoral college is undemocratic, try voting in India or Russia.

Actual conversation between my cousin (in India) and I when I was 8

Me: So are you going to vote when you get older?

Cousin: Nah

Me: Why not?

Cousin: Too much corruption. My vote doesn't change anything.

Me: Do you have to register to vote?

Cousin: Yeah

Me: Does it cost any money?

Cousin: Do I have to pay to register? Hahaha no. They pay me to register.

Me: Who pays you to register?

Cousin: Duh the politicians.

Be grateful we don't have rampant voter fraud. Keep the electoral college.

The Electoral College is a system that can unfairly represent the population, such as in 1876, 1888 and 2000.

It's not unfair, it just prevents uninformed people from running the country

Edited 1/24/2016 23:00:38

+1 jai and General I believe in an aristocratic republic.

Depending on the period, no I am right.

Define uninformed.

Most people don't know how wealth is created. Most people think farm subsidies are a good thing.

For instance, chuck norris (the warlight account) believes in zero-sum economics. Should he and the like be telling us how to run our country?

/\/\
1) You are saying that we should disenfranchise voters' ability to have an impact due to their views?

Zero-sum economics is a valid school of economics, while not heavily recognized by either side of the political spectrum, The guy who created the idea and put together the evidence necessary for it won the noble prize.

I support disenfranchising people who can't add 2 and 2 though, and other transgressions regarding science that is set in stone.

Edited 1/24/2016 23:22:03

Zero-sum is idiocy. They have their say in the election, but wiser heads should have the final say.

they shouldn't be allowed to vote imo. only people with a basic understanding of economics, who know a bit about the candidates for whom they're voting and are at least 21 should vote.

Also, here's an article that shows us that bankers are complete idiots
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/24/bernie-sanders-vermont-senator-its-absurd-presiden/

Pls get a respectable source. The washington times is garbage.

I only pulled it for the quote from the banker, which was kind of funny, I didn't read any of the analysis, and would not suggest anyone else do so.

k

My point still stands: You want to disenfranchise voters due to their views just because they don't fit your political views.
That ruins the republic. Putting a system in that disenfranchises voters just because some voters have wrong ideas is not what fair elections are about.

Why would anybody vote if their ideas were deemed wrong by the ruling party?
This in turn puts the government under a de facto one party system in which the ruling party decides who can vote.
If this was to be true in the US, America would turn into what she has been fighting or fought in Iraq with Hussain, Korea with the Kims, Vietnam with the Communist Party, etc.