- This topic has 23 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
MotherJones had a good article on all the bad things about the electoral college.
It’s an interesting topic. And, it’s one that tends to twist people into knots when you really press them… You know, things like:
- Do you believe in protecting minorities?
- Do you believe in the sovereignty of states (at all)?
- Do you believe that direct democracy is or was ever the intent of the framers?
- Do you believe that, if California had 99 percent of the country’s population, that California should be able to make laws for the rest of the country?
- Do you believe the 3/5ths compromise was racist? If so, by whom? Were the racists the people who wanted to count the slaves as whole, or the ones who wanted not to count the slaves?
That last one tends to be a doozy for the un-initiated. Of course the people who were anti-slavery didn’t want the slaves counted because it gave power to slave states. And, yet the “3/5ths of a person” trope is marched out there as evidence of systemic racism, when slavery would possibly have been abolished earlier if slaves weren’t counted at all. Of course, we wouldn’t have had a union in the first place, but that’s all theory.
What say you? The electoral college is ready for the dustbin, or essential to the union and the republic as it stands?
____________________________________________________________
Sic transit gloria mundi (so shut up and get back to work) -
-
Do you believe that, if California had 99 percent of the country’s population, that California should be able to make laws for the rest of the country?
Of course, because effectively there would be no “rest of the country”. Dirt doesn’t get a vote. All those maps showing some huge swath of red states are highly misleading.
NO MALARKEY
-
-
Sore losers. It’s like saying someone wants to take back the shot clock or abolish the three point rule in basketball. Teams will adapt. They always do after a short period of transition. So would politicians with regards to the Electoral College. I can think of several ways the Republicans would adjust to a change in the electoral rules. One simple alteration for sample is to campaign for absolute vote counts by increasing their numbers in California and running up the score in red states.
The imbeciles who complain about the electoral college should watch out for what they wish. Simpletons really.
By the way, I am totally open to one conclave per century to discuss and effect constitutional amendments. The Swiss allow for amending whenever all the cantons agree to it.
-
[quote quote=1348]
-
Do you believe that, if California had 99 percent of the country’s population, that California should be able to make laws for the rest of the country?
Of course, because effectively there would be no “rest of the country”. Dirt doesn’t get a vote. All those maps showing some huge swath of red states are highly misleading.[/quote]
Dirt doesn’t get a vote, I agree.
But states do. And a state isn’t its population.
The framers were smart.
Should we abolish statehood?
____________________________________________________________
Sic transit gloria mundi (so shut up and get back to work) -
-
I am sorry but the third question is simply uneducated claptrap. If the framers had wanted pure majority democracy we’d have it. some of them believed in it, hell, its a reasonable thing to believe in. They decided on what we have for obvious reasons. Now had the framers known that we would have an election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump its safe to say we would probably all be singing hail to the king.
-
-
[quote quote=1356]I am sorry but the third question is simply uneducated claptrap. If the framers had wanted pure majority democracy we’d have it. some of them believed in it, hell, its a reasonable thing to believe in. They decided on what we have for obvious reasons. Now had the framers known that we would have an election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump its safe to say we would probably all be singing hail to the king.[/quote]
The question is “Uneducated claptrap” eh?
You sling the high hard one when you don’t even understand the question. If someone is questioning the electoral college, they are usually advocating for direct democracy, which isn’t what the framers built or intended to build. So, My friend, why would posing that question be “uneducated claptrap?”
It usually smokes out the ignorance in the room.
____________________________________________________________
Sic transit gloria mundi (so shut up and get back to work) -
-
PL: A state isn’t its population? So to take your example to the extreme (it’s already quite extreme though), hypothetically if just two guys lived in the other 49 states you think all 98 of them should get Senate Seats and Congressional votes. And 98 people should be able to set the laws, budget, etc. for 300 million people in another state? They would win the electoral college too, I believe, and would be able to appoint a President and all the Supreme Court justices.
As you know, that would be an oligarchy under the guise of “democracy”.
NO MALARKEY
-
[quote quote=1370]Edit: replied in the wrong place. Meant for Personal Legend… PL: A state isn’t its population? So to take your example to the extreme (it’s already quite extreme though), hypothetically if just two guys lived in the other 49 states you think all 98 of them should get Senate Seats and Congressional votes. And 98 people should be able to set the laws, budget, etc. for 300 million people in another state? They would win the electoral college too, I believe, and would be able to appoint a President and all the Supreme Court justices. As you know, that would be an oligarchy under the guise of “democracy”.[/quote]
Technically speaking, yes, that could happen but only in the hypothetical, and it would never be oligarchy because the 49 states could not vote in or even recommend the vast majority of the government, but it’s an absurd reduction of course.
Sticking to the electoral college, In your example the 49 states would get something like 98 senate seat electors and another 49 rep electors. That’s 147 of the 538 votes. Assuming the one big state had all or nothing electoral commitment, that state would determine the election every time. The extreme is not a good example as the minority is really never protected.
In the policy example, the big state gets the house and the presidency, and the small states get the senate. The executive would have to play nice enough with the senate to get judges and key appointments confirmed, and the house would have to play nice enough to get any meaningful legislation ratified.
As it stands, the union would not exist without the balancing of state and population representation. The state gets two votes, regardless of its population, and the population gets the rest.
it’s a weird, wonderful machine that allows for massive states with some counterbalancing of the other states. It’s not near the disaster you suggest, even in the extreme.
____________________________________________________________
Sic transit gloria mundi (so shut up and get back to work) -
-
-
- [quote quote=1376]Even if they only had the Senate it seems absurd. The other 300M+ people effectively couldn’t pass any legislation, budgets, etc. without the consent of most of those 98 people. They could not appoint anyone to the courts either without the approval from the oligarchs.[/quote]
Starting to feel like a debate about baseball rules. It’s absurd that your first two foul balls are strikes but you can foul a hundred more times and not strike out, but them’s the rules.
In practical terms our federal government is built to give some weight to states over people. It’s just the way it is. That actually helps protect minority populations, but objectively. Since we have established via the civil war that union is for life, then I’d suggest that the weighting of states is even more important.
____________________________________________________________
Sic transit gloria mundi (so shut up and get back to work) -
- [quote quote=1376]Even if they only had the Senate it seems absurd. The other 300M+ people effectively couldn’t pass any legislation, budgets, etc. without the consent of most of those 98 people. They could not appoint anyone to the courts either without the approval from the oligarchs.[/quote]
Starting to feel like a debate about baseball rules. It’s absurd that your first two foul balls are strikes but you can foul a hundred more times and not strike out, but them’s the rules.
In practical terms our federal government is built to give some weight to states over people. It’s just the way it is. That actually helps protect minority populations, but objectively. Since we have established via the civil war that union is for life, then I’d suggest that the weighting of states is even more important.
____________________________________________________________
Sic transit gloria mundi (so shut up and get back to work) -
You are arguing the rules (my bad for mentioning them), whereas your original question simply asked if it was fair if one state made the rules for the rest of the country if they had 99% of the population. I simply took your extreme example to its logical conclusion — from 99% to 99.9+%.
I thought it was “we the people”. I am sure the states argument was meant to protect the rights of the people in those states, not some soil and minerals. When the imbalance becomes so extreme those folks end up as oligarchs for all practical purposes. If they were all communists and the other 99% were Breitbart conservatives, I’m going to guess there would suddenly be some new interpretations of the meaning of “states rights”.
NO MALARKEY
-
[quote quote=1381]You are arguing the rules (my bad for mentioning them), whereas your original question simply asked if it was fair if one state made the rules for the rest of the country if they had 99% of the population. I simply took your extreme example to its logical conclusion — from 99% to 99.9+%. I thought it was “we the people”. I am sure the states argument was meant to protect the rights of the people in those states, not some soil and minerals. When the imbalance becomes so extreme those folks end up as oligarchs for all practical purposes. If they were all communists and the other 99% were Breitbart conservatives, I’m going to guess there would suddenly be some new interpretations of the meaning of “states rights”.[/quote]
Actually I’m pretty sure I made fun of arguing the rules, and then argued the practical principles. Apologies if you missed that.
While looking at this from the perspective of “what if all the bad peoples are in the minority and this gives them power” is a fair interpretation, in real life that’s awfully naive. The more likely scenario is that a large state, like California, gains too much clout on an issue that hits small or rural states. Think about water rights as an example. Would it be “fair” for Californians to vote themselves rights to all of the excess water in the west?
Maybe to make it a better hypothetical, make Nevada the heavy. Would it be fair for Nevada to vote itself all of California’s water, or should california have at least a say in the matter.
Im telling you, this union of states is important. Local government is super important, and to supersede it by saying that the bicameral legislature is unfair is to ignore a lot of history where minorities and rural folks have been crushed by political elites from faraway places. Is that “unfair” to the individual voting in a presidential election from a large state? Perhaps, but only because they can’t see the checks and balances in play on their own likelihood to mob up and crush the distant, rural unknown folks.
Maybe a better discussion is this, Neo: what would be a better system? Are you arguing for direct democracy?
____________________________________________________________
Sic transit gloria mundi (so shut up and get back to work) -
Maybe a better discussion is this, Neo: what would be a better system? Are you arguing for direct democracy?
I’ve thought about it, for certain. I understand the demographics and communications challenges that, 2.4 centuries ago necessitated the electoral college. And I suppose I wouldn’t mind direct democracy, as long as it came with a system of initiatives, whereby non-felonious American citizens could vote on issues of importance.
But then I think about the intelligence of the average American, the desire of trial lawyers to see the stupidest, most easily-swayed potential jurors in the jury box and then I think “let’s just keep it the way it is.”
-
“Maybe a better discussion is this, Neo: what would be a better system? Are you arguing for direct democracy?”
Are you confusing me with Neodymium or Thomas Anderson from the Matrix?
A better system would be a parliamentary system like those that exist in most democracies. The two party system is too polarizing and seems to exacerbate some extreme views, IMHO.
NO MALARKEY
-
-
-
The two party system has not always been polarizing. There are a host of reasons as to why now: Landslide districts, ideological segregation, 24/7 news stations with agendas, the ability to choose “news” through websites that simply feed your bias. Social media. Talk radio. The rise of opinion journalism. Gingrich telling Congress to spend more those at home and less in Washington. Increase in demonizing the opposition.
When Reagan passed his tax cut in ‘86 it received big support from Dems. It was brought to the House by Dan Rostenkowski. Obama and Trumps biggest legislative achievements passed on pure party line votes.
-
Lex, your list seems to be focused on process, on third parties, on communications channels and indirectly to voters.
“Landslide districts, ideological segregation, 24/7 news stations with agendas, the ability to choose “news” through websites that simply feed your bias. Social media. Talk radio. The rise of opinion journalism.”
My friend, that makes you a significant part of the problem. In my view, the only people responsible for the inefficiency/ineffectiveness/outright criminality/conflict of interest seen in our politics are the practitioners themselves. A Portland mayor who blames folks who have been in his city for a week for a problem he has failed to address for six months? A Chicago mayor who uses racist language to dismiss a fact based critique of her absolute failure in limiting gun violence and murder in her impoverished communities…while wearing cowboy hats to pimp for the census? A NY mayor who paints the streets when criminality/street crime in his city is metastasizing more rapidly than RBG’s cancer? A chair of the House Intel Committee who has spent three years claiming there was evidence of collusion in plain view. This is the same fellow who KNEW, from first hand under oath testimony in front of his committee, that no one in the intel infrastructure had any such first hand knowledge. An idiot Minnesota AG who tries to pull a Shakespeare and suggest the obviously weak political language, “defund the police” be changed to “refund communities”. Same stupid policy though.
The “root causes” you cite in your effort to explain why our politics are failing are nothing but the tools employed by our professional practitioners. And I’ll add here, our self enriching practitioners. Why won’t you blame them? See Representative Omar’s campaign financing strategies using her hubby as a principal vendor? You are familiar with the term “skim”? {Lex, isn’t this a simpler more straight forward explanation for why our politics are broken? Division, animosity and fear drive the money…too easily.} You have the Senators making portfolio allocation decisions based on DC virus briefings? All cleared by the Senate, yea, right. Then there is Hunter Biden clearing a $100k a month…after his old man was specifically and personally briefed about the inappropriateness of Hunter’s activities in Ukraine. The DoS informed our VP that his son’s activities represent a Houston we have a problem moment, so Joe now claims ignorance. The kid’s raising money from China as they seek to undermine the competitive advantage of our economy?
And of course businesses are all too quick to play along. BofA donating a billion to BLM? Other donations by Walmart, Target, FaceBook? What is the world does the BLM agenda have to do with underwriting loans or running retail supply chains?
I’ll leave you with a simple question; in the 2020 election cycle, who is the outsider, who is more likely to expose this bs to the disinfecting light of day; Biden or the Orange One? Start at the top and destroy downward.
Here's a toast with one last pour, may it last forever and a minute more;
Good fortune seems to you have sung, to live and love way past long
-
-
-
-
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.