America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 5 years ago by frankj1. 83 replies replies.
2 Pages12>
Scrap the electoral college system?
bs_kwaj Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 02-13-2006
Posts: 5,214

So California and New York can 'elect' whoever they want?

Beer
victor809 Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
It's purpose is still valid, but it probably should be tweaked.

I'm sure that when the electoral college was put in place they had no concept of how significantly different the populations would be between civilized areas and the suburbs.

Both the electoral college and the "2 senators per state" ideas should be adjusted to better meet the demographics of today's country.

victor809 Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
If one were a strict constitutionalist one would want to adjust it.

I would bet that the current ratios of population to votes in the electoral college and population to senators is significantly different than that initially set up.

I would expect a strict constitutionalist would want to adjust the system to meet how it was originally envisioned.
Gene363 Online
#4 Posted:
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,669
bs_kwaj wrote:
So California and New York can 'elect' whoever they want?

Beer


No, we need to remain a republic, not a democracy.

Quote:
PPeople often refer to the United States as a democracy, but technically speaking, that’s not true. It’s a republic.

Big deal, you say? If you care about your rights, it is. The Founding Fathers knew their history well, so they knew better than to establish the U.S. as a democracy.

In a democracy, of course, the majority rules. That’s all well and good for the majority, but what about the minority? Don’t they have rights that deserve respect?

Of course they do. Which is why a democracy won’t cut it. As the saying goes, a democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.

The Founders were determined to forestall the inherent dangers of what James Madison called “the tyranny of the majority.” So they constructed something more lasting: a republic. Something with checks and balances. A system of government carefully balanced to safeguard the rights of both the majority and the minority.

That led, most notably, to the bicameral structure of our legislative branch. We have a House of Representatives, where the number of members is greater for more populous states (which obviously favors those states), and the Senate, where every state from Rhode Island and Alaska to California and New York have exactly two representatives (which keeps less-populated states from being steamrolled).

Being a republic, we also don’t pick our president through a direct, majority-take-all vote. We have an Electoral College. And a lot of liberals don’t like that.

Their attacks on the College are nothing new, but the defeat of Hillary Clinton in 2016 renewed their fury. After all, as they never tire of pointing out, Mrs. Clinton captured more of the popular vote than Donald Trump did. They see the Electoral College as an impediment to their political victories, therefore it’s got to go.

Credit: Edwin J. Feulner
delta1 Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
not necessarily victor...some of the stuff I read said that our founding fathers were very dubious about the intelligence of the masses...

they felt that the average citizen could be hood-winked by a few conspiring connected people, so they intentionally created a system whereby each state would be responsible for the selection of the POTUS, to bypass the simple majority rule...

hmmmm...didn't that just happen....
victor809 Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Gene. One can adjust it while remaining a republic.

Just as a full "majority takes all" is not desirable (I have said here many times, and had conservatives here disagree with me when I have said we need to protect against the "tyranny of the majority") we also cannot have it as disproportionate as it is.

As it stands, each senator represents 1/100th of the Senate power in a nation of 350,000,000 people. A number of these senators have been voted into office with about 200,000 or less votes. Those people have a significantly disproportionate amount of say in the running of the country.
victor809 Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Delta... I have not suggested otherwise.
I simply want to take another look at the ratios and how they have changed over the years.
Gene363 Online
#8 Posted:
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,669
victor809 wrote:
Gene. One can adjust it while remaining a republic.

Just as a full "majority takes all" is not desirable (I have said here many times, and had conservatives here disagree with me when I have said we need to protect against the "tyranny of the majority") we also cannot have it as disproportionate as it is.

As it stands, each senator represents 1/100th of the Senate power in a nation of 350,000,000 people. A number of these senators have been voted into office with about 200,000 or less votes. Those people have a significantly disproportionate amount of say in the running of the country.


Each State needs to be represented equally, hence, two Senators (Members of the parliament of whores upper house.), per State. The Constitution is built to consider the separation of States from the Federal government. I don't think you would get smaller states to agree anyway.

Both parties have benefited and complained about the electoral college, another reason to leave it alone.
Speyside Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
It's a good system. It has worked for a long time. Its principals are still valid today. It needs no change.
victor809 Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
From a Senate side I'm .... Torn. I can see a rationale (a minor one) to keep it at "each state reported equally" but that's only out of laziness. States are arbitrary lines in the sand of arbitrary sizes and with arbitrarily identified resources... To say each must have an equal say is.... Odd.

I do agree with the idea of there being a skew towards states in the Senate. But to say it has to be equal isnt based in anything. The states don't contribute to the country equally.

The electoral map should probably be adjusted to better match the original concept.
victor809 Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
One could make an argument that states should have a say in the federal government equal to their contribution... So even low population states with oil can have a large say... That would encourage states to attract business and create revenue.
Gene363 Online
#12 Posted:
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,669
victor809 wrote:
One could make an argument that states should have a say in the federal government equal to their contribution... So even low population states with oil can have a large say... That would encourage states to attract business and create revenue.


We are a republic, not a democracy, the majority does not rule. Do you really want the Jerry Springer/Opra show audience to run the country?
victor809 Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Where did I say that?

(PS, they already are)
victor809 Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
You want a part of the Congress to be based around states, not population. I don't necessarily disagree with that. I never said it should be in proportion to population.

But it also shouldn't necessarily be the way it is.

When the Senate was established, the economic contribution and population differences between the states were much more similar. A completely even say made a lot of sense.

Now we have enormous differences in population and enormous differences in contribution to the country. All I'm saying is it would likely be smart to reexamine the way Senate votes are allocated with that in mind. To use the exact same system when we had a completely different distribution of people and resources and wealth is not the best decision.
tailgater Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185

People want change because they don't like the results.

It's funny.

victor809 Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Thanks Capt obvious.

A broken system that still gives you results you want isn't going to be looked at.

People only examine whether a system is working correctly if the output is contrary to what they expect (and usually people want what they expect).

So thanks once again for your brilliant insight....
tailgater Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
So my quip was so "obvious" that you felt compelled to explain even more clearly?

You're officially a caricature of yourself.

victor809 Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
If you felt the need to point out something that obvious, then clearly someone needed to explain to you why it was obvious.

It's ok tail. Clearly you need special assistance in understanding things.

Mrs. dpnewell Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 08-23-2014
Posts: 1,373
It can only be done by Constitutional Amendment. The Amendment would have to pass BOTH the House and the Senate by a two thirds (66.67%) majority. It would then have to be ratified by 75% of the states. Ain't gonna happen.

David
victor809 Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Agreed.
It will never change. Mainly because there are sufficient states who will lose power that they will never vote for it.


But think about that for a second.

They won't vote for it because they won't give up power which they have which is in excess of their population or contribution to the economy. And they have sufficient power now that their unwillingness to give it up ensures that it cannot be changed.

That sounds like the system is a little broken.
tailgater Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
If you felt the need to point out something that obvious, then clearly someone needed to explain to you why it was obvious.

It's ok tail. Clearly you need special assistance in understanding things.



And clearly you volunteered yet again for the a task that nobody asked for, wasn't needed, and won't do any good.
All you need to do is demand to get paid a fair amount for performing the unnecessary task and you've just become a spokes person for the democrat party.
Gender neutral, of course.

frankj1 Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
Mrs. dpnewell wrote:
It can only be done by Constitutional Amendment. The Amendment would have to pass BOTH the House and the Senate by a two thirds (66.67%) majority. It would then have to be ratified by 75% of the states. Ain't gonna happen.

David

it has been done...I think
Speyside Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Victor, you made some unique comments in this post. So I have a few questions to pose to you. Why would you consider the suburbs uncivilized? Do you think those in rural areas have no right to equal representation? And finally what system would you choose that would work better?
ZRX1200 Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,476
Boy are the lunatic lefties SALTY......

Better watch that pendulum.
CruzJ Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 04-17-2014
Posts: 222
Speyside wrote:
Victor, you made some unique comments in this post. So I have a few questions to pose to you. Why would you consider the suburbs uncivilized? Do you think those in rural areas have no right to equal representation? And finally what system would you choose that would work better?


Was wondering the same thing myself.
Speyside Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
How does asking questions based on substantiated previous statements qualify me for the lunatic left? Or am I part of the lunatic left based on previous observed behavior?
ZRX1200 Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,476
Bro.....wasn’t directed at you


My comment was directed at the subject at hand.
Speyside Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Gotcha, my bad.
frankj1 Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
Speyside wrote:
Victor, you made some unique comments in this post. So I have a few questions to pose to you. Why would you consider the suburbs uncivilized? Do you think those in rural areas have no right to equal representation? And finally what system would you choose that would work better?

I read V's post as at the time the Electoral College was adopted.
Suburbs were not as we know them today by a long shot.
Speyside Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Was the farming done by slaves back then?
tailgater Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Reparations!

Speyside Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Reparate this!
delta1 Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
Speyside wrote:
Was the farming done by slaves back then?


yes, but since slaves were property and not citizens they couldn't vote...

southern slave owning plantation owners knew they would always lose a numbers game to the more populated urban industrialized northern states...leveraged their influence because agriculture was a much more critical component to our infant country's economy...

got their slaves to count as 3/5 of a person...of course, the owner did not allow any of his slaves to vote, he used their numbers to vote multiple times...

part of the back-drop to the development of our republic and the electoral college...
rfenst Online
#34 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,100
What ever happened to one man one vote?
frankj1 Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
I got thrown outta my first college, partly because I was part of a subversive group that got a fictitious student elected student body president
I miss drugs.
Speyside Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
So you weren't part of the Chicago 7?
frankj1 Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
Speyside wrote:
So you weren't part of the Chicago 7?

didn't show up for my interview
ZRX1200 Offline
#38 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,476
Oh for FUXXXXS sake.......

Who wanted the 3/5ths????

You think the south wanted LESS votes? It was a compromise proposed by TWO NORTHERNERS.....to give the south more seats in the house than if slaves didn’t count. And it was a clever way to not let them dominate the UNITED states if they counted as a WHOLE vote......Jesus H Christ on a cracker

RMAN4443 Offline
#39 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
ZRX1200 wrote:
Oh for FUXXXXS sake.......

Who wanted the 3/5ths????

You think the south wanted LESS votes? It was a compromise proposed by TWO NORTHERNERS.....to give the south more seats in the house than if slaves didn’t count. And it was a clever way to not let them dominate the UNITED states if they counted as a WHOLE vote......Jesus H Christ on a cracker


Cracker!!!! Is that some kind of sly racial slur???Think

Racist!!!Not talking
Speyside Offline
#40 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
I guess I should have used the sarcasm emoji. I thought anyone would know my question was in jest. I seems I was wrong.
frankj1 Offline
#41 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
ZRX1200 wrote:
Oh for FUXXXXS sake.......

Who wanted the 3/5ths????

You think the south wanted LESS votes? It was a compromise proposed by TWO NORTHERNERS.....to give the south more seats in the house than if slaves didn’t count. And it was a clever way to not let them dominate the UNITED states if they counted as a WHOLE vote......Jesus H Christ on a cracker


Madison was first to propose it.

there's tons more to read on the subject, but to suggest the North benefited more will probably not be found
MACS Offline
#42 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,593
delta1 wrote:
yes, but since slaves were property and not citizens they couldn't vote...

southern slave owning plantation owners knew they would always lose a numbers game to the more populated urban industrialized northern states...leveraged their influence because agriculture was a much more critical component to our infant country's economy...

got their slaves to count as 3/5 of a person...of course, the owner did not allow any of his slaves to vote, he used their numbers to vote multiple times...

part of the back-drop to the development of our republic and the electoral college...


Not everyone owned slaves. In fact, a select, rich few owned slaves. Some American Indians owned black slaves. Some freed black men owned black slaves.

I think even liberal estimates of the percentage of people that owned slaves in states that allowed it is less than 10%.
tailgater Offline
#43 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
rfenst wrote:
What ever happened to one man one vote?


The 19th amendment.


ZRX1200 Offline
#44 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,476
Wilson and Sherman.

The North did benefit because it was a compromise and the slave owners couldn’t uses the slaves votes as a full vote. Frank.....
frankj1 Offline
#45 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
ZRX1200 wrote:
Wilson and Sherman.

The North did benefit because it was a compromise and the slave owners couldn’t uses the slaves votes as a full vote. Frank.....

it allowed the lesser populated southern areas to count bodies (considered property) toward the electoral college and an increase in reps in congress without actually allowing their human property to vote.
delta1 Offline
#46 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
correct...the overall effect was to increase the numbers of Reps in slave owning states
frankj1 Offline
#47 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
yeah, some great win for the North!
Abrignac Offline
#48 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,217
Confederation Congress
The three-fifths ratio originated with a 1783 amendment proposed to the Articles of Confederation. The amendment was to have changed the basis for determining the wealth of each state, and hence its tax obligations, from real estate to population, as a measure of ability to produce wealth. The proposal by a committee of the Congress had suggested that taxes "shall be supplied by the several colonies in proportion to the number of inhabitants of every age, sex, and quality, except Indians not paying taxes". The South immediately objected to this formula since it would include slaves, who were viewed primarily as property, in calculating the amount of taxes to be paid. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his notes on the debates, the southern states would be taxed "according to their numbers and their wealth conjunctly, while the northern would be taxed on numbers only".

After proposed compromises of one-half by Benjamin Harrison of Virginia and three-fourths by several New Englanders failed to gain sufficient support, Congress finally settled on the three-fifths ratio proposed by James Madison. But this amendment ultimately failed, falling two states short of the unanimous approval required for amending the Articles of Confederation (only New Hampshire and New York were opposed).

Constitutional Convention
The Convention had unanimously accepted the principle that representation in the House of Representatives would be in proportion to the relative state populations. However, since slaves could not vote, leaders in slave states would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College. Delegates opposed to slavery proposed that only free inhabitants of each state be counted for apportionment purposes, while delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, opposed the proposal, wanting slaves to count in their actual numbers.

The proposal was debated on July 11th and initially, the concept of counting by a three-fifths ratio was voted down by the members present at the Convention. A few southern delegates, seeing an opportunity, then proposed full representation for their slave population. Seeing that the states could not remain united without some sort of compromise measure, the ratio of three fifths was brought back to the table and agreed to.

Compromise and enactment
After a contentious debate, the compromise that was finally agreed upon—of counting "all other persons" as only three-fifths of their actual numbers—reduced the representation of the slave states relative to the original proposals, but improved it over the Northern position. An inducement for slave states to accept the Compromise was its tie to taxation in the same ratio, so that the burden of taxation on the slave states was also reduced.

The Three-Fifths Compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, which reads:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

A contentious issue at the 1787 Constitutional Convention was whether slaves would be counted as part of the population in determining representation of the states in the Congress or would instead be considered property and, as such, not be considered for purposes of representation. Delegates from states with a large population of slaves argued that slaves should be considered persons in determining representation, but as property if the new government were to levy taxes on the states on the basis of population. Delegates from states where slavery had become rare argued that slaves should be included in taxation, but not in determining representation.

The proposed ratio was, however, a ready solution to the impasse that arose during the Constitutional Convention. In that situation, the alignment of the contending forces was the reverse of what had been obtained under the Articles of Confederation in 1783. In amending the Articles, the North wanted slaves to count for more than the South did because the objective was to determine taxes paid by the states to the federal government. In the Constitutional Convention, the more important issue was representation in Congress, so the South wanted slaves to count for more than the North did.

Much has been said of the impropriety of representing men who have no will of their own.... They are men, though degraded to the condition of slavery. They are persons known to the municipal laws of the states which they inhabit, as well as to the laws of nature. But representation and taxation go together.... Would it be just to impose a singular burden, without conferring some adequate advantage?— Alexander Hamilton
Abrignac Offline
#49 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,217
IIRC women were counted as well, but they weren’t allowed to vote either. This then makes one wonder if population density of ineligible females didn’t favor the northern population hubs.
frankj1 Offline
#50 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
there were slaves in the North too...to be fair.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>