The Great RW myth about the Founders' meaning of 'Republic'.

[BuckToothMoron]

We hear it all the time. The founders didn't want democracy; they wanted a 'republic'. The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -

those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.

Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.

Thomas Jefferson:

"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,

I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.

Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19

Get it? Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.

Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.

Jefferson again:

"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65

.Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,

he equates them.

And Jefferson continues:

"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.

There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.

And one more...

"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23

I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.

Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles

Kudos to you for researching and now acknowledging that Jefferson along with the other founders realized that pure democracy or pure Republic was not practical for the entire country.

• 
  Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816.

You've grown and I assume will now accept the results of the election as a demonstration of not a pure republic or pure democracy, but rather a unique design of popular government spread across a large geographical area.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, he did not say that. You are just dumb and can't pick up the nuance. We already knew you were dumb.


Regardless of what he thought, they are not interchangeable.

Ok, who wrote the letters then?

It's not who wrote them, it's about the fool who decided to interpret them.

Ok, then you interpret the quote:

"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..."

It sure as hell doesn't mean that "republic" is completely interchangeable with "democracy". And even if it did, you have no case, as these are two DIFFERENT concepts.

Pure democracy is mob rule, republic is a much more restricted with guaranteed rights for all, by the constitution. But please go on pretending...

Are you part of the mob or not?

When it comes to LGBT marriage rights or abortion rights, yes, he is part of the mob. When it comes to Trump's election, he is not part of the mob.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, he did not say that. You are just dumb and can't pick up the nuance. We already knew you were dumb.


Regardless of what he thought, they are not interchangeable.

Ok, who wrote the letters then?

It's not who wrote them, it's about the fool who decided to interpret them.

Ok, then you interpret the quote:

"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..."

It sure as hell doesn't mean that "republic" is completely interchangeable with "democracy". And even if it did, you have no case, as these are two DIFFERENT concepts.

Pure democracy is mob rule, republic is a much more restricted with guaranteed rights for all, by the constitution. But please go on pretending...

Why can't a pure democracy protect rights?

If it is a pure democracy, than civil rights are subject to 50+1 majority. Ipso facto, such rights cannot be protected by mob voting.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ok, who wrote the letters then?

It's not who wrote them, it's about the fool who decided to interpret them.

Ok, then you interpret the quote:

"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..."

It sure as hell doesn't mean that "republic" is completely interchangeable with "democracy". And even if it did, you have no case, as these are two DIFFERENT concepts.

Pure democracy is mob rule, republic is a much more restricted with guaranteed rights for all, by the constitution. But please go on pretending...

Why can't a pure democracy protect rights?

If it is a pure democracy, than civil rights are subject to 50+1 majority. Ipso facto, such rights cannot be protected by mob voting.

The 'mob' can pass a law that says you have a right to bear arms, can't they? The 'mob' can attach a requirement to that law that it can't be repealed with less than a 75% majority. Can't they?

 

[NYcarbineer]

We hear it all the time. The founders didn't want democracy; they wanted a 'republic'. The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -

those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.

Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.

Thomas Jefferson:

"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,

I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.

Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19

Get it? Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.

Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.

Jefferson again:

"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65

.Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,

he equates them.

And Jefferson continues:

"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.

There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.

And one more...

"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23

I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.

Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles

Kudos to you for researching and now acknowledging that Jefferson along with the other founders realized that pure democracy or pure Republic was not practical for the entire country.

• 
  Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816.

You've grown and I assume will now accept the results of the election as a demonstration of not a pure republic or pure democracy, but rather a unique design of popular government spread across a large geographical area.

Direct democracy is a subset of Democracy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"A Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding on what's for dinner" - often accredited to Benjamin Franklin

Federal Republic (n)
a form of government made up of a federal state with a constitution and self-governing subunits

Example
The United States of America is a federal republic on the continent of North America.

the definition of federal republic


A federal republic is a type of government made up of smaller areas such as states or provinces where the central government cedes certain powers to the individual areas for self-government purposes. The citizens of the federal republic elect their own representatives to lead them.

What is a federal republic?


"An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic

It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.

These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see."

more

An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic


Burned again NYCarbineer. Aren't you getting tired of it yet?

That is full of false premises. Democracies can just as easily protect minority rights as can a Republic.

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

Conservatives hate majority rule. Conservatives hate the judiciary overruling the majority.

Conservatives hate it either way.

Paul Ryan on abortion rights:

“We don’t think that unelected judges should make this decision,” he said. “We think that people through their elected representatives should make this determination.”

IOW, 'mob rule' is bad unless we like the outcome. That is how the Right thinks.



Ryan: Elected officials - not judges - should decide on the legality of abortion - MedCity News

Funny how the leftards want individual states rights circumvented by liberal mandate..

Ryan wants abortion rights decided by what you RW'ers call 'tyranny of the majority'.

Ryan thinks the courts, which are there to protect minority rights, are the tyrants.

Jesus, which is it?

Except Gallup has America 50% Pro-Life and 44% Pro-Choice.

The court has ruled in Roe v Wade that murdering a fetus is a right. Then, by extension, if the murder of one class of citizen is legal, what's to stop the Court from deciding to legalize the murder of another class of citizen if a third class claims it's their right? A precedent has been set.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Conservatives hate majority rule. Conservatives hate the judiciary overruling the majority.

Conservatives hate it either way.

Paul Ryan on abortion rights:

“We don’t think that unelected judges should make this decision,” he said. “We think that people through their elected representatives should make this determination.”

IOW, 'mob rule' is bad unless we like the outcome. That is how the Right thinks.



Ryan: Elected officials - not judges - should decide on the legality of abortion - MedCity News

Funny how the leftards want individual states rights circumvented by liberal mandate..

The far right fooks want popular democracy on civil rights, like abortion or gay marraige, but the EVs on the presidency. . They are fooks because they cannot think straightly. Billy_boob is but one example. Shakles is another.

As the country polarizes more and more, the electoral college system becomes a distinct advantage for Republicans.
In two out of the last three GOP presidential wins, they've needed the electoral college (that disaster for democracy as Trump called it) to overcome their loss of the popular vote.

The Founders established the need for the electoral college over the popular vote, wvwb Jefferon is specifically quoted as being against the use of a democracy "popular vote" to determine the presidential outcome on a national level.

What do you suppose is the reasoning behind the Founders choice for the electoral college and choosing a Republic system of government over a simple democracy vote on national issues?

Despite NYCabineer's objection to how the presidential election was decided, and his efforts to TRY to find quotes of Jefferson to object to this system of government, its what our Forefathers (through their many debates) finally settled upon using in the Constitution as the best representation for the people.

It's the lack of understanding behind the electoral college and the reasoning behind using a Republic form of government appears more evident with each presidential election. Did they simply not teach the electoral college as part of our nation's history with these liberals?

 

[blackhawk]

Amazing how people's view of our current system of government can change depending on how an election turns out.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Conservatives hate majority rule. Conservatives hate the judiciary overruling the majority.

Conservatives hate it either way.

Paul Ryan on abortion rights:

“We don’t think that unelected judges should make this decision,” he said. “We think that people through their elected representatives should make this determination.”

IOW, 'mob rule' is bad unless we like the outcome. That is how the Right thinks.



Ryan: Elected officials - not judges - should decide on the legality of abortion - MedCity News

Funny how the leftards want individual states rights circumvented by liberal mandate..

The far right fooks want popular democracy on civil rights, like abortion or gay marraige, but the EVs on the presidency. . They are fooks because they cannot think straightly. Billy_boob is but one example. Shakles is another.

As the country polarizes more and more, the electoral college system becomes a distinct advantage for Republicans.
In two out of the last three GOP presidential wins, they've needed the electoral college (that disaster for democracy as Trump called it) to overcome their loss of the popular vote.

The Founders established the need for the electoral college over the popular vote, wvwb Jefferon is specifically quoted as being against the use of a democracy "popular vote" to determine the presidential outcome on a national level.

What do you suppose is the reasoning behind the Founders choice for the electoral college and choosing a Republic system of government over a simple democracy vote on national issues?

Despite NYCabineer's objection to how the presidential election was decided, and his efforts to TRY to find quotes of Jefferson to object to this system of government, its what our Forefathers (through their many debates) finally settled upon using in the Constitution as the best representation for the people.

It's the lack of understanding behind the electoral college and the reasoning behind using a Republic form of government appears more evident with each presidential election. Did they simply not teach the electoral college as part of our nation's history with these liberals?

Can you imagine the blow back if just the population centers were dictating how the rest of us live? The Electoral College prevents them from becoming the ruling class and America becoming a dictatorial state similar to the one in the movie "The Hunger Games"...

The founding Fathers were very wise...

Now to quote Ben Franklin, "We have given you a Republic, but can you keep it?"

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

"A Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding on what's for dinner" - often accredited to Benjamin Franklin

Federal Republic (n)
a form of government made up of a federal state with a constitution and self-governing subunits

Example
The United States of America is a federal republic on the continent of North America.

the definition of federal republic


A federal republic is a type of government made up of smaller areas such as states or provinces where the central government cedes certain powers to the individual areas for self-government purposes. The citizens of the federal republic elect their own representatives to lead them.

What is a federal republic?


"An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic

It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.

These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see."

more

An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic


Burned again NYCarbineer. Aren't you getting tired of it yet?

That is full of false premises. Democracies can just as easily protect minority rights as can a Republic.

I submitted evidence proving the error of your assumption. Now prove my evidence is false with something other than a blanket statement. Present links so I too can confirm your rebuttal.

My guess you didn't read my entire post and follow the link in my last quotation because it contradicts your narrative. It was written by people a hell of a lot more conversant in the subject than you or I.

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

The communists liked the name Republic so much they used it all over their domain.

True, but the USSR and the DPR are not "Federal" Republics's.

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

We hear it all the time. The founders didn't want democracy; they wanted a 'republic'. The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -

those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.

Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.

Thomas Jefferson:

"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,

I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.

Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19

Get it? Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.

Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.

Jefferson again:

"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65

.Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,

he equates them.

And Jefferson continues:

"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.

There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.

And one more...

"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23

I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.

Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles

Stupid shit like this is why you have no credibility... no not you personally, but your regressive gang. You don't have credibility because your IQ is smaller than that of a potato. Admittedly, typical in the group.

Norman, when are you going to grow up and talk like an adult. The founders were republican in political philosophy, in that they did not trust the hordes of revisionist poorly educated right wingers in the states.

There was no such thing as a "Ring-Winger" at the time of the founding.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Conservatives hate majority rule. Conservatives hate the judiciary overruling the majority.

Conservatives hate it either way.

Paul Ryan on abortion rights:

“We don’t think that unelected judges should make this decision,” he said. “We think that people through their elected representatives should make this determination.”

IOW, 'mob rule' is bad unless we like the outcome. That is how the Right thinks.



Ryan: Elected officials - not judges - should decide on the legality of abortion - MedCity News

Funny how the leftards want individual states rights circumvented by liberal mandate..

The far right fooks want popular democracy on civil rights, like abortion or gay marraige, but the EVs on the presidency. . They are fooks because they cannot think straightly. Billy_boob is but one example. Shakles is another.

As the country polarizes more and more, the electoral college system becomes a distinct advantage for Republicans.
In two out of the last three GOP presidential wins, they've needed the electoral college (that disaster for democracy as Trump called it) to overcome their loss of the popular vote.

The Founders established the need for the electoral college over the popular vote, wvwb Jefferon is specifically quoted as being against the use of a democracy "popular vote" to determine the presidential outcome on a national level.

What do you suppose is the reasoning behind the Founders choice for the electoral college and choosing a Republic system of government over a simple democracy vote on national issues?

Despite NYCabineer's objection to how the presidential election was decided, and his efforts to TRY to find quotes of Jefferson to object to this system of government, its what our Forefathers (through their many debates) finally settled upon using in the Constitution as the best representation for the people.

It's the lack of understanding behind the electoral college and the reasoning behind using a Republic form of government appears more evident with each presidential election. Did they simply not teach the electoral college as part of our nation's history with these liberals?

Can you imagine the blow back if just the population centers were dictating how the rest of us live? The Electoral College prevents them from becoming the ruling class and America becoming a dictatorial state similar to the one in the movie "The Hunger Games"...

The founding Fathers were very wise...

Now to quote Ben Franklin, "We have given you a Republic, but can you keep it?"

Too many on the far right and far left want a mass democracy so they can holocaust their opponents.

 

[JakeStarkey]

[There was no such thing as a "Ring-Winger" at the time of the founding.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We hear it all the time. The founders didn't want democracy; they wanted a 'republic'. The distinction is usually made by conservatives to defend any undemocratic aspects of our system of government -

those that just so happen to suit the conservative agenda.

Well, how about we hear what a real founding father really said about this thing 'republic'.

Thomas Jefferson:

"It must be acknowledged that the term republic is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea,

I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens.

Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:19

Get it? Jefferson EQUATES 'republic' to 'direct democracy', with only the caveat that a direct democracy becomes impractical in larger areas of space and population.

Never does he say that democracy and republic are distinct or separate entities.

Jefferson again:

"A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816. ME 15:65

.Once again, he does NOT differentiate between democracy and republic,

he equates them.

And Jefferson continues:

"The first shade from this pure element which, like that of pure vital air cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen either pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic which is practicable on a large scale of country or population.

There he explains how a representative democracy, or republic, should function, when a pure (direct) democracy, aka a republic, is impractical.

And one more...

"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition..." Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23

I suggest that before certain people spout off about what the founders believed, they actually find out what the founders believed.

Jefferson on Politics & Government: Republican Principles

Stupid shit like this is why you have no credibility... no not you personally, but your regressive gang. You don't have credibility because your IQ is smaller than that of a potato. Admittedly, typical in the group.

Norman, when are you going to grow up and talk like an adult. The founders were republican in political philosophy, in that they did not trust the hordes of revisionist poorly educated right wingers in the states.

There was no such thing as a "Ring-Winger" at the time of the founding.

There were rightwingers during the Revolution. They were called Tories, or Loyalists.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Amazing how people's view of our current system of government can change depending on how an election turns out.

Yeah. The Right claimed Clinton's win in 92 wasn't legitimate because he only got 43% of the popular vote.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Conservatives hate majority rule. Conservatives hate the judiciary overruling the majority.

Conservatives hate it either way.

Paul Ryan on abortion rights:

“We don’t think that unelected judges should make this decision,” he said. “We think that people through their elected representatives should make this determination.”

IOW, 'mob rule' is bad unless we like the outcome. That is how the Right thinks.



Ryan: Elected officials - not judges - should decide on the legality of abortion - MedCity News

Funny how the leftards want individual states rights circumvented by liberal mandate..

Ryan wants abortion rights decided by what you RW'ers call 'tyranny of the majority'.

Ryan thinks the courts, which are there to protect minority rights, are the tyrants.

Jesus, which is it?

Except Gallup has America 50% Pro-Life and 44% Pro-Choice.

The court has ruled in Roe v Wade that murdering a fetus is a right. Then, by extension, if the murder of one class of citizen is legal, what's to stop the Court from deciding to legalize the murder of another class of citizen if a third class claims it's their right? A precedent has been set.

The Court protecting abortion rights is exactly the kind of government that you people claim distinguishes a democracy from a republic, the Court supposedly being characteristic of the latter.

PS 60% of Americans do NOT want Roe v Wade overturned. lol, you lose either way.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Conservatives hate majority rule. Conservatives hate the judiciary overruling the majority.

Conservatives hate it either way.

Paul Ryan on abortion rights:

“We don’t think that unelected judges should make this decision,” he said. “We think that people through their elected representatives should make this determination.”

IOW, 'mob rule' is bad unless we like the outcome. That is how the Right thinks.



Ryan: Elected officials - not judges - should decide on the legality of abortion - MedCity News

Funny how the leftards want individual states rights circumvented by liberal mandate..

The far right fooks want popular democracy on civil rights, like abortion or gay marraige, but the EVs on the presidency. . They are fooks because they cannot think straightly. Billy_boob is but one example. Shakles is another.

As the country polarizes more and more, the electoral college system becomes a distinct advantage for Republicans.
In two out of the last three GOP presidential wins, they've needed the electoral college (that disaster for democracy as Trump called it) to overcome their loss of the popular vote.

The Founders established the need for the electoral college over the popular vote, wvwb Jefferon is specifically quoted as being against the use of a democracy "popular vote" to determine the presidential outcome on a national level.

What do you suppose is the reasoning behind the Founders choice for the electoral college and choosing a Republic system of government over a simple democracy vote on national issues?

Despite NYCabineer's objection to how the presidential election was decided, and his efforts to TRY to find quotes of Jefferson to object to this system of government, its what our Forefathers (through their many debates) finally settled upon using in the Constitution as the best representation for the people.

It's the lack of understanding behind the electoral college and the reasoning behind using a Republic form of government appears more evident with each presidential election. Did they simply not teach the electoral college as part of our nation's history with these liberals?

A Republican form of government in no way requires an electoral college system to elect chief executives. That the dumbest thing you've ever said.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"A Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding on what's for dinner" - often accredited to Benjamin Franklin

Federal Republic (n)
a form of government made up of a federal state with a constitution and self-governing subunits

Example
The United States of America is a federal republic on the continent of North America.

the definition of federal republic


A federal republic is a type of government made up of smaller areas such as states or provinces where the central government cedes certain powers to the individual areas for self-government purposes. The citizens of the federal republic elect their own representatives to lead them.

What is a federal republic?


"An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic

It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.

These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see."

more

An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic


Burned again NYCarbineer. Aren't you getting tired of it yet?

That is full of false premises. Democracies can just as easily protect minority rights as can a Republic.

I submitted evidence proving the error of your assumption. Now prove my evidence is false with something other than a blanket statement. Present links so I too can confirm your rebuttal.

My guess you didn't read my entire post and follow the link in my last quotation because it contradicts your narrative. It was written by people a hell of a lot more conversant in the subject than you or I.

Do you wish to deny that a Democracy can protect minority rights?