I would still vote Democrat even if Hillary was the worst human being on earth...

[mrstickball]

sethnintendo said:

TheLastStarFighter said:

Not necessarily.  Both systems have their faults.  But I'm not talking about better or more fair, I'm talking about democratic.  As in, decision my those ruled.  The more direct and involved the voting process, the more democratic the process.  The US has one of the most - if not most - "democratic" process in the world.

I get where you are coming from.  I just hate how our system is set up where the losers are pretty much told to pack up and try again next election cycle.  I think giving a proportion (most proportional are not true proportional) is more fair than nothing at all.  It just kind of sucks being in a state that votes for a party that you don't like.  The electoral college basically rights off most states are either red or blue and just focuses on a few states like Ohio or Florida.  I am surprised that Texas is now supposedly a tight race but that could be because of the two most disliked candidates being the representatives of their parties. Oh and I also don't approve the process of gerrymandering.

That being said isn't the United States a Republic?  Technically USA is a Republic first and foremost that democratically elects their representatives.  I believe in order to be a democracry the citizens vote directly on laws (which happens for bond issues / local level I suppose).

There are multiple types of democracies out there... We are in fact a constitutional republic. We do, however, elect most of our leaders democratically. This was not always the case. Originally, the representatives/senators nominated/elected the presidents. But this has changed in favor of direct-voting primaries.. That isn't even a very old concept, as you can look back at nominations in the 1950s and 1960s where 1/2 the states didn't even vote on the nomination.