I was speaking strictly to the form the Electoral College supports our representative republic in that we don't directly vote for President, we vote for representatives who vote for our president.
The way that I consider it to be a bastardization of the Representative Republic is that we don't care who the representatives in the Electoral College are we only care who they vote for.
If we elected the EC as people who were allowed to make a choice then it would be more of a representative republic. Instead we have a democracy in that we are really just voting for president, but some people's vote count more than others.
>> and because we don't have a monarchy -- that's the Republic part.
That is wrong. There is such thing as a representative democracy. That is where the majority always wins. AKA Popular Vote.
> I was speaking strictly to the form the Electoral College supports our representative republic in that we don't directly vote for President, we vote for representatives who vote for our president.
The President is an elected head of state and government, a characteristic of a representative republic, whether he is directly or indirectly elected.
> There is such thing as a representative democracy
Yes, representative republics are a subset of representative democracies (Constitutional monarchies are usually also representative democracies, though not republics, because monarchy.)
> That is where the majority always wins.
No, democracy doesn't mean "the majority always wins", and the distinction you are trying to make between representative republics and representative democracies is not what those terms actually mean.
If you scroll down to the section on the Elections you'll see where I formed the opinion that an indirect election of the president conforms with the definition of republic I'm used to.
>> The indirect election of the president through the electoral college conforms to the concept of republic as one with a system of indirect election. In the opinion of some, direct election confers legitimacy upon the president and gives the office much of its political power.
So this is where I formed the (incorrect) idea that the word Republic had a hard and fast definition that corroborated this definition.
Obviously I was wrong, but I'd like to say that you are not correct either. Typically I hate being wrong, but through this exercise I was able to learn. So thank you for challenging me to dive deeper to find out why my definition didn't match the commonly accepted definitions and where'd I'd come to that conclusion.
The way that I consider it to be a bastardization of the Representative Republic is that we don't care who the representatives in the Electoral College are we only care who they vote for.
If we elected the EC as people who were allowed to make a choice then it would be more of a representative republic. Instead we have a democracy in that we are really just voting for president, but some people's vote count more than others.
>> and because we don't have a monarchy -- that's the Republic part.
That is wrong. There is such thing as a representative democracy. That is where the majority always wins. AKA Popular Vote.