bs_kwaj
  • bs_kwaj
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
7 years ago

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

🍺
victor809
7 years ago
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
7 years ago
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
7 years ago

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

🍺

bs_kwaj wrote:



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

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
7 years ago
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
7 years ago
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
7 years ago
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
7 years ago

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 wrote:



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
7 years ago
It's a good system. It has worked for a long time. Its principals are still valid today. It needs no change.
victor809
7 years ago
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
7 years ago
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
7 years ago

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.

victor809 wrote:



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
7 years ago
Where did I say that?

(PS, they already are)
victor809
7 years ago
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
7 years ago

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

It's funny.

victor809
7 years ago
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
7 years ago
So my quip was so "obvious" that you felt compelled to explain even more clearly?

You're officially a caricature of yourself.

victor809
7 years ago
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
7 years ago
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
7 years ago
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.
Users browsing this topic