A
Abrosz
Guest
If we want to go into the details - which is always a good practice - we have a hybrid system. The Constitution establishes the powers of the government, but the representation is decided via the “democratic” principles. (By the way: "we speak of true democracy, when two wolves and one sheep VOTE for what will be for dinner tonight). And the third part of the government - the judicial branch - is supposed to be the balancing factor.I agree with some of what you posted but definitely - however not this … actually one-person-one-vote system is NOT the real bedrock of the Republic. That would be a pure Democracy which is a tyranny of the majority and not a stable form of governance …
In the Roman concept of “republic” there were the tribunes, two citizens of impeccable reputation, whose life was sacrosanct - and who only had ONE power, and we still use the ancient word for it: “VETO”! They could prevent the legislators and the “executive” branch from overreaching.
Our system is a pretty good approximation of this arrangement, except that the judicial branch does not have the simple “VETO” power. If only the judges were truly independent and without a party and religious affiliation - it would be much better.
The electoral college was established for ONE reason only - to allow the voting process to be simpler. Not everyone could have a day off (the second Tuesday) from work, so the electors were assumed to represent the will of those who voted for the party line. They were NOT supposed to be allowed to vote for whatever they wanted to - and this requirement is gaining acceptance these days.
The balancing you speak of, TWO senators and proportional representatives were established precisely to allow the minorities to be protected against the rule of the majority. And, of course it was a wonderful idea. The electoral college has nothing to do with it.