Robert: "The Constitution does not require that presidents be elected by a majority of the electorate; it does not even require that they be elected by a plurality." Which is why it is not all that democratic. The electoral college is to keep the majority from making a "mistake." Veronica Caley Milford, MI ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert Paul To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 10:37 PM Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Giving Thanksgiving/Adorno and TAP Omar wrote I mean, I would think that what distinguishes an authoritatian presidential system like the one in the US from dictatorship is the fact that the US president rules with the consent of at least the majority of the populace. If this circumstance were removed, it would be a dictatorship then. Conversely, if Saddam Hussain had been genuinely elected by the majority of Iraqis, he would not then have been a dictator but an authoritarian president. I'm not sure why you call the US form of government 'an authoritarian presidential system.' It isn't "authoritarian' in any ordinary sense of that word. Laws are passed by Congress and approved (or vetoed) by the president, although Congress may in turn override a veto by a vote of at least 2/3rds of both houses. The president appoints federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, but those nominated must be approved by Congress. The Supreme Court can overturn presidential directives (which are not voted on beforehand) such as Roosevelt's Executive Order 90662, which called for the internment of persons of Japanese descent living west of the Rockie Mountains. (In this case the Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality.) A president may be impeached or removed from office on other grounds by Congress (or, I imagine, by the criminal justice system). And so on. The Constitution does not require that presidents be elected by a majority of the electorate; it does not even require that they be elected by a plurality. See e.g. http://tinyurl.com/69yk5q Robert Paul. not running for anything