Nem said:
There is no such thing as tyranny of the majority. It is a ridiculous concept. If theres a majority, by definition its not a tyranny. A majority is not an arbitrary use of power. It's a legitimate one. By definition that concept is contradictory. Couldn't care less who the candidates are. i'm more shocked about how undemocratic, outdated and discriminating your system is. |
So... Proof by Assertions followed by assumption of mutual exclusiveness without further elaboration on how. A fantastic argument and your assertion that a majority is legitimate without further elaboration is even more fantastic...
A constitutional republic adopts certain qualities of a democracy. That doesn't make it undemocratic, but hey, anything that's not a pure democracy is undemocratic in your eyes. It's rather comical that you only focused on one aspect of my initial post and ignored that part where I suggested that the electoral college needs reform. The main flaws of the electoral college is the 'winner-take-all' aspect and gerrymandering. The Founders did not envision either of those two things to happen. Perhaps fixing these two issues will help the electoral college be more effective rather than whining how the EC is 'undemocratic' without doing further contemplation.
And did I say you care about the candidates? Because whether you care or not does not change the fact that there is no majority in this year's election. No one got over 50% of the popular vote.
