Your Wikipedia article on voting rights just says you can't restrict them on gender, sexuality, race or political views, none of which I disagree with. Read your source.
I'm not American, but I do think the American system is maybe the closest to what I think people should have, regardless, my nation of origin doesn't matter in the discussion.
He didn't win the popular vote? He did win the most votes out of all parties, the ONLY majority government with 34% of Germans supporting him, in all of Weimar Germany's history. Never before had a government received a majority like that. The other 66% of votes were split in smaller numbers between the (I think it was 40?) political parties.
The definition of republic you supplied through Wikipedia literally says what I've said. A republic is not a democracy (although can be managed in the form of one) and I advocate for a republic in which people who demonstrate responsibility can vote. In other words, not an unrestricted democracy.
To take your own words, it's a good read. You should read your own sources because they don't support your argument. To be frank, I have no clue why you thought just posting them would do anything. Seriously, what do those sources disprove of my claims? They affirm them.
(Hint: there's no source that republics don't work for larger populations. What even is a "larger population" anyway?)
Which means they exist. If you can't restrict them then they exist.
You should probably brush up on your american government then, before you argue american government with somebody who has had to study american government. (Its mandatory in our high school system but you probably wouldn't know that)
Which is why we do ranked choice now, you know so we have a winner who won the popular vote.
Right we agree
What argument don't my sources support?
Nazi Germany is a good example of republics not working for larger populations, thank you for supplying me with an excellent example.
"Rome itself was made up of over 1 million people"
American population: 327.2 million
So lets just say somewhere between those two numbers as a jumping off point. Lets see if we can't narrow it down.
I didn't link any sources, I linked the definition of a republic so you could educate yourself, you're welcome!
(I'm now assuming you're Russian, feel free to contradict me!)
Ok I've clearly explained this multiple times and yet you still disagree, there's nowhere else to go. No matter what I say you'll disagree.
I never said you couldn't restrict voting rights, I just said I agree that they shouldn't be restricted solely on gender, sexuality, race and political views. Voting rights does not mean "right to vote." That doesn't exist.
The fact that I said "only people that demonstrate responsibility should vote" means that it should be restricted, just restricted to those who are responsible. All countries restrict voting to legal adults. Seems like this "right" isn't really a "right." The right to vote doesn't exist. What does exist, is the right not to be excluded from voting because of things you can't control.
Nazi Germany didn't necessarily "not work," it became a dictatorship and thus no longer a democracy (again, different from a republic, voting rights were not restricted in Weimar Germany by anything except age).
We can't narrow down what a "larger population" is because we don't know what "doesn't work" means in the context of a nation's system of government in regards to voting. Or, at least, it wasn't described within this conversation, of which the burden of proof is on you.
"I didn't link any sources, I linked the defini-" I'm gonna stop you right there. The thing/website that has that definition? That's called a source.
"Republic, so you could educate yourself" and as I said, I already knew that, I told you to read it yourself because it literally does not do anything to my claims but supports them.
If you're going to childishly respond with racism because you think I'm Russian and you can't comprehend simple English terms and context, don't bother responding. Have a good day.
I mean you could just admit you're wrong about what the Constitution of The Unites States of America says, then we would agree, but if you continue to pretend Americans don't have the right to vote we aren't gonna find any common ground (It literally says this in the Constitution go read it, 14th amendment)
"Nazi Germany didn't necessarily "not work," it became a dictatorship and thus no longer a democracy (again, different from a republic, voting rights were not restricted in Weimar Germany by anything except age)."
So it didn't work as a democracy, the republic was insufficient to protect the right of the individual citizens right to vote.
It doesn't work when anyone in the society loses the right to vote. That's the definition.
I have no idea what in the definition of republic you think supports your argument, perhaps you could quote the relevant text?
(Wikipedia isn't a source, the sources are cited at the bottom)
Russian isn't a race, its a nationality, and again feel free to correct me about your country of origin!
You're allowed to believe what you want, and I can see that attempting to persuade you would be, and is, futile.
Let's just agree to disagree. Because I seriously do not have enough time to refute each of the statements you made that I already did.
Wikipedia is still a source, it just lists it's own sources for the information it provides. Sources can do that. You're still incorrect. This is the evidence that I can't convince you.
1
u/throwaway8675-309 Oct 27 '19
Your Wikipedia article on voting rights just says you can't restrict them on gender, sexuality, race or political views, none of which I disagree with. Read your source.
I'm not American, but I do think the American system is maybe the closest to what I think people should have, regardless, my nation of origin doesn't matter in the discussion.
He didn't win the popular vote? He did win the most votes out of all parties, the ONLY majority government with 34% of Germans supporting him, in all of Weimar Germany's history. Never before had a government received a majority like that. The other 66% of votes were split in smaller numbers between the (I think it was 40?) political parties.
The definition of republic you supplied through Wikipedia literally says what I've said. A republic is not a democracy (although can be managed in the form of one) and I advocate for a republic in which people who demonstrate responsibility can vote. In other words, not an unrestricted democracy.
To take your own words, it's a good read. You should read your own sources because they don't support your argument. To be frank, I have no clue why you thought just posting them would do anything. Seriously, what do those sources disprove of my claims? They affirm them.
(Hint: there's no source that republics don't work for larger populations. What even is a "larger population" anyway?)