Time to junk the electoral college in favor of direct vote? HJ Res 7.

[RadioGod]

Another tidbit this morning is House Joint Resolution 7, which proposes the electoral college is outdated, and calls for an amendment to the Constitution that makes the President and Vice-President offices to be filled by a direct vote of the people.
In the bill itself, Thomas Jefferson is quoted;

Whereas Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”;

Full Text of HJ Res 7- https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hjres7/text

Quick link to story- https://www.dailywire.com/news/39931/breaking-democrats-introduce-bill-eliminate-ryan-saavedra

[jimmyz]

Doa

[pragmatic]

Another tidbit this morning is House Joint Resolution 7, which proposes the electoral college is outdated, and calls for an amendment to the Constitution that makes the President and Vice-President offices to be filled by a direct vote of the people.
In the bill itself, Thomas Jefferson is quoted;

Whereas Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”;

Full Text of HJ Res 7- https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hjres7/text

Quick link to story- https://www.dailywire.com/news/39931/breaking-democrats-introduce-bill-eliminate-ryan-saavedra




Never gonna happen.

It's a math thingy.



(plus i'm a big fan of the electoral college....)

[Hoosier8]

Another tidbit this morning is House Joint Resolution 7, which proposes the electoral college is outdated, and calls for an amendment to the Constitution that makes the President and Vice-President offices to be filled by a direct vote of the people.
In the bill itself, Thomas Jefferson is quoted;

Whereas Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”;

Full Text of HJ Res 7- https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hjres7/text

Quick link to story- https://www.dailywire.com/news/39931/breaking-democrats-introduce-bill-eliminate-ryan-saavedra



The Framers understood that direct democracy fails so that is why they protected the minority states votes. Without the EC only the the large metropolitan areas would pick the president ignoring the rest of the country. Of course democrats would like it because all of their handouts are given in the large metropolitan areas.

[Tahuyaman]

No way. That would result in a few of pockets of liberal metro elites basically ruling the nation. It would lead to a rebellion.

[RadioGod]

The Framers understood that direct democracy fails so that is why they protected the minority states votes. Without the EC only the the large metropolitan areas would pick the president ignoring the rest of the country. Of course democrats would like it because all of their handouts are given in the large metropolitan areas.
Wrong. The Framers understood that a direct vote of the people in their time would be extremely taxing and difficult. And they also understood that in supplanting themselves in the place of the former monarchy, an electoral college would make overthrow by vote more difficult. They were not trying to be fair and democratic. But they wanted it to appear that way. That's what comrade Putin told me, anyways.

[Admiral Ackbar]

Fine as long as the states are given the chance to leave the Union if they disagree. Our Republic wont die that easy

[Admiral Ackbar]

Wrong. The Framers understood that a direct vote of the people in their time would be extremely taxing and difficult. And they also understood that in supplanting themselves in the place of the former monarchy, an electoral college would make overthrow by vote more difficult. They were not trying to be fair and democratic. But they wanted it to appear that way. That's what comrade Putin told me, anyways.

You are wrong. The electoral college was instituted so that the smaller states would have protection from the tyrannical rule by the majority of the larger states. Sound familiar? With out this mechanism some states would never have ratified the Constitution.

Before you tell others they are wrong try being right

[Hoosier8]

Wrong. The Framers understood that a direct vote of the people in their time would be extremely taxing and difficult. And they also understood that in supplanting themselves in the place of the former monarchy, an electoral college would make overthrow by vote more difficult. They were not trying to be fair and democratic. But they wanted it to appear that way. That's what comrade Putin told me, anyways.

Wrong, they understood direct democracy ALWAYS fails and put in safeguards to prevent it.

[Private Pickle]

Another tidbit this morning is House Joint Resolution 7, which proposes the electoral college is outdated, and calls for an amendment to the Constitution that makes the President and Vice-President offices to be filled by a direct vote of the people.
In the bill itself, Thomas Jefferson is quoted;

Whereas Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”;

Full Text of HJ Res 7- https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hjres7/text

Quick link to story- https://www.dailywire.com/news/39931/breaking-democrats-introduce-bill-eliminate-ryan-saavedra



Why? Do you think that the populated areas of cities such as New York and Los Angeles who typically vote Liberal do so because they are enlightened? OR could it be that given their extremely dense population a great many are dependent on entitlement programs for which the Liberals espouse?

Tell you what... I'll compromise with you. Instead of a State-based electoral college bring it down to the county level. It would be more representative of the people right?

[RadioGod]

You are wrong. The electoral college was instituted so that the smaller states would have protection for tyrannical rule by the majority by the larger states. Sound familiar. With out this mechanism some states would never have ratified the Constitution.

Before you others they are wrong try being right

That was the excuse. Just like there is a difference between education and reality. In business school they teach you to balance your books. Spending and investments, operating costs, sales, profits. But in the real world, business get operated differently, those costs get externalized onto the taxpayer or other businesses as much as possible.
The same could be said for our Constitution. It is a totally different document than the Declaration of Independence. The Founders took the people's desire for freedom and personal prosperity, and used it to wrest control from the King. Once that was accomplished, they gave us a finely crafted load of sh*t that tried to placate the people, while firmly establishing our new government in a more secure position, unaffected by popular sentiment and a direct vote.
They cited the irregularities of a real democracy as a legitimate excuse for a republican government. This went through easily in a separated and illiterate population. And with their representative form of government, they were able to hold fast to a simple truth. It is easier to fool or corrupt a few people, than it is to fool or corrupt the entire population. While speaking against elitism, and even titles of nobility, the Constitution created a separate, influential, and elite class of representatives, and even judges that get pissed when you don't recognize them as "Your Honor".
If you want to know the truth, study the human condition. See how people live in societies. See how some people aspire to be elite, above other's in authority and recognition. See how some people like to make laws and rules, but never follow them for themselves. Then re-read the Declaration and the Constitution.
Maybe you don't see it this way. It can only be 1 of 2 things here. Either I am crazy, or I am operating so far above your intelligence that I seem that way. For your sake, hopefully the former is correct.

[Private Pickle]

Wrong, they understood direct democracy ALWAYS fails and put in safeguards to prevent it.

The truth is this country is not a Democracy. We are a Republic that has based our electoral processes on Democratic principles which is a representational system. The difference between a Democracy and a Republic is that our inalienable rights cannot be taken away by the government even if it has been elected by a majority of voters. In a pure Democracy the majority can impose it's will on the minority.

While the OP believes pure Democracy is the way to go it is simply based on the fact that currently there are more people voting Democrat than Republican in presidential elections. What he doesn't understand is that this is a moving goal post and 10 years from now the complete opposite could happen at which point he would then demand an electoral college. His basis of knowledge and thereby desires only extends to the last presidential cycle. He doesn't remember when Reagan won 49 of 50 States during his election of 1984.

Simple minds want simple solutions and rarely consider the consequences.

[Admiral Ackbar]

Wrong, they understood direct democracy ALWAYS fails and put in safeguards to prevent it.
Hoosier8 Love the Molly Hatched Avatar

[MisterVeritis]

Wrong. The Framers understood that a direct vote of the people in their time would be extremely taxing and difficult. And they also understood that in supplanting themselves in the place of the former monarchy, an electoral college would make overthrow by vote more difficult. They were not trying to be fair and democratic. But they wanted it to appear that way. That's what comrade Putin told me, anyways.
You should consider reading from time to time. Putin is rotting your brain.

[RadioGod]

Why? Do you think that the populated areas of cities such as New York and Los Angeles who typically vote Liberal do so because they are enlightened? OR could it be that given their extremely dense population a great many are dependent on entitlement programs for which the Liberals espouse?

Tell you what... I'll compromise with you. Instead of a State-based electoral college bring it down to the county level. It would be more representative of the people right?

I appreciate the compromise. So, if a county is split 49% to 51%, the vote from the county would be 1 vote in favor of the 51%. I would predict an unprecedented change in county borders within every single State. It would get rigged.
The only way to best represent the vote of each person, is to count the vote of each person. Add them up, the majority wins.

[MisterVeritis]

...The same could be said for our Constitution. It is a totally different document than the Declaration of Independence.

No shit, Sherlock?

The Declaration of Independence established the case for independence. It also gave the reason why a new government should be instituted.


The US Constitution established the structure and limited authority the States granted the new federal government.

[Private Pickle]

That was the excuse.

No that was the reason. It's also the reason that the electoral college is supported across partisan lines to this day.


Just like there is a difference between education and reality. In business school they teach you to balance your books. Spending and investments, operating costs, sales, profits. But in the real world, business get operated differently, those costs get externalized onto the taxpayer or other businesses as much as possible.

No... You're talking about the economics of the private sector vs. the public sector. You see in the private sector one actually has to balance their books or they go out of business. In the public sector all one has to do is to get those costs externalized onto the taxpayer. It's why America's biggest employer is the Federal government and why our taxes continue to increase both on businesses and the taxpayer.

The same could be said for our Constitution. It is a totally different document than the Declaration of Independence. The Founders took the people's desire for freedom and personal prosperity, and used it to wrest control from the King. Once that was accomplished, they gave us a finely crafted load of sh*t that tried to placate the people, while firmly establishing our new government in a more secure position, unaffected by popular sentiment and a direct vote.

I've never heard the Constitution, an agreed upon document by the delegates of the States of that time, that delineates the national frame of our government as a load of shit meant to placate the people. The Constitution protects our citizen's rights from the government. It does not establish a secure position for the government. Furthermore the Constitution is not above being amended and has been 27 times.

They cited the irregularities of a real democracy as a legitimate excuse for a republican government. This went through easily in a separated and illiterate population. And with their representative form of government, they were able to hold fast to a simple truth. It is easier to fool or corrupt a few people, than it is to fool or corrupt the entire population. While speaking against elitism, and even titles of nobility, the Constitution created a separate, influential, and elite class of representatives, and even judges that get pissed when you don't recognize them as "Your Honor".

If that were the case why did they adopt democratic systems to elect governmental positions? You'd have to fool a lot more people than just a few to win elections. Enter our media and their willingness to get in bed with a political agenda vs. actually just reporting the NEWS.

If you want to know the truth, study the human condition. See how people live in societies. See how some people aspire to be elite, above other's in authority and recognition. See how some people like to make laws and rules, but never follow them for themselves. Then re-read the Declaration and the Constitution.

And in 243 years this nation has become the greatest on Earth both in economic and military might. Not to mention diversity, recognition of rights to the minority and adherence to international law. Some nations have been around for 2,000 years and haven't achieved what we have... Now re-read the Declaration and Constitution and tell me I'm wrong.

Maybe you don't see it this way. It can only be 1 of 2 things here. Either I am crazy, or I am operating so far above your intelligence that I seem that way. For your sake, hopefully the former is correct.

Not many see it your way. That's because Americans enjoy the best lifestyle on Earth. Even poor Americans have cars, TVs, cellphones and full bellies. Many progressives simply think they are smarter than everyone else and that everyone else who disagrees with them do so because they operate at a lower intelligence. To me that seems like vanity or in political terms hubris. Careful how far you're willing to take that. Hubris is a tricky thing and you'll find yourself wondering how you are the victim of the losing side at the last minute when in reality you were losing all along.

[MisterVeritis]

Maybe you don't see it this way. It can only be 1 of 2 things here. Either I am crazy, or I am operating so far above your intelligence that I seem that way. For your sake, hopefully the former is correct.
It is. You are crazy. See, we can agree on some things. :grin:

[RadioGod]

You should consider reading from time to time. Putin is rotting your brain.
LOL. And Sean Hannity yours. Whatever is left of it, of course.
I suppose you have a different take on why the Declaration is so different in tone than the Constitution. Why would a group of influencers from pulpits, newspapers, and businesses get together and call for and end to tyranny, injustice, inequality, and no representation in government, then give us a document that makes our individual votes not count to the degree that a Presidential candidate can win the vote by over 3 million ballots, yet still lose an election?
Why did these freedom-loving founders set up an elitist representative class, a class that speaks for all of us? That would make these Founder's ill-intentioned liars and manipulators, or really dumb and short-sighted. Far from the American genius they are portrayed as either way.

[MisterVeritis]

I appreciate the compromise. So, if a county is split 49% to 51%, the vote from the county would be 1 vote in favor of the 51%. I would predict an unprecedented change in county borders within every single State. It would get rigged.
The only way to best represent the vote of each person, is to count the vote of each person. Add them up, the majority wins.
The President is not selected directly. Representatives are. The Senators should be selected by each State's legislators.

[DGUtley]

No. We'd have the larger states lording over the smaller states. Bad idea.

[Private Pickle]

I appreciate the compromise. So, if a county is split 49% to 51%, the vote from the county would be 1 vote in favor of the 51%. I would predict an unprecedented change in county borders within every single State. It would get rigged.
The only way to best represent the vote of each person, is to count the vote of each person. Add them up, the majority wins.

So you don't want to take the compromise because you believe the government to be corrupt and as such would try to manipulate the system to their favor. I think we have gained some mutual progress here and for that I am happy. However; it's pretty shallow on your part.

You recognize and as such want to take advantage of a trend that is currently taking place in American politics. There are more liberal voters than conservative ones. You think that trend is here to stay. I'm trying to tell you that isn't the case and have historical precedence on my side.

Unfortunately for your desires we live in a Republic. The pure definition of a Republic is that the majority does not rule. I offered a very equitable solution. That we drill down into the citizenry and go by county. You know this would be devastating to you...Especially in high population States like New York and California who have high population counties that are predominately Republican such as San Diego County.... A county that has made many attempts at succeeding from the State but rejected because of the electoral college.

Land your plane brother. If you think the majority will ever rule in this country you are seriously mistaken and rightfully so. I'm sure you would have disagreed with the majority's desires to not overturn the right to keep slaves and rejected the 13th Amendment correct? In your world the majority would have overruled the minority and we could quite possibly have slavery today or at the very least set back Civil rights 100 years. Is that a price you would be willing to pay or are you just focused on what has happened in the last 2 decades of American politics?

[Private Pickle]

No. We'd have the larger states lording over the smaller states. Bad idea.

Drill it down to the counties. Problem solved.

[Admiral Ackbar]

LOL. And Sean Hannity yours. Whatever is left of it, of course.
I suppose you have a different take on why the Declaration is so different in tone than the Constitution. Why would a group of influencers from pulpits, newspapers, and businesses get together and call for and end to tyranny, injustice, inequality, and no representation in government, then give us a document that makes our individual votes not count to the degree that a Presidential candidate can win the vote by over 3 million ballots, yet still lose an election?
Why did these freedom-loving founders set up an elitist representative class, a class that speaks for all of us? That would make these Founder's ill-intentioned liars and manipulators, or really dumb and short-sighted. Far from the American genius they are portrayed as either way.

So what is the need for a Legislative body of any type? Just put everything to referendum? Isnt a legislative body unfair. What if my Congressman casts a vote I disagree with? Shouldn't I be able to vote directly on everything? You logic is flawed and would lead to tyranny of the majority

[Private Pickle]

The President is not selected directly. Representatives are. The Senators should be selected by each State's legislators.

What? No. Congressmen and women represent their constituents at a Federal level. State legislators only do so for their State's inhabitants. Pass.

[RadioGod]

No that was the reason. It's also the reason that the electoral college is supported across partisan lines to this day.



No... You're talking about the economics of the private sector vs. the public sector. You see in the private sector one actually has to balance their books or they go out of business. In the public sector all one has to do is to get those costs externalized onto the taxpayer. It's why America's biggest employer is the Federal government and why our taxes continue to increase both on businesses and the taxpayer.


I've never heard the Constitution, an agreed upon document by the delegates of the States of that time, that delineates the national frame of our government as a load of $#@! meant to placate the people. The Constitution protects our citizen's rights from the government. It does not establish a secure position for the government. Furthermore the Constitution is not above being amended and has been 27 times.


If that were the case why did they adopt democratic systems to elect governmental positions? You'd have to fool a lot more people than just a few to win elections. Enter our media and their willingness to get in bed with a political agenda vs. actually just reporting the NEWS.


And in 243 years this nation has become the greatest on Earth both in economic and military might. Not to mention diversity, recognition of rights to the minority and adherence to international law. Some nations have been around for 2,000 years and haven't achieved what we have... Now re-read the Declaration and Constitution and tell me I'm wrong.


Not many see it your way. That's because Americans enjoy the best lifestyle on Earth. Even poor Americans have cars, TVs, cellphones and full bellies. Many progressives simply think they are smarter than everyone else and that everyone else who disagrees with them do so because they operate at a lower intelligence. To me that seems like vanity or in political terms hubris. Careful how far you're willing to take that. Hubris is a tricky thing and you'll find yourself wondering how you are the victim of the losing side at the last minute when in reality you were losing all along.

I appreciate your well thought out reply, even though I agree with none of it. And I would offer the only reason we have become the most powerful nation in the world today isn't because of our values and sheer awesomeness. It is because the big businesses got that way by leeching off of us. They bribe other's in other countries with our tax money. They broker deals using our national credit as collateral. We are so dumb and easily manipulated as a people, the true elites have no choice but to use us and prop us up on the world stage.
Being great because we are dumb and clueless is nothing to be proud of. It's an embarrassment.

[MisterVeritis]

You should consider reading from time to time. Putin is rotting your brain.

LOL. And Sean Hannity yours.
I have made no claims of relying on Sean Hannity. You did lay a claim to Putin. You are welcome to him.


Whatever is left of it, of course.
It is true I am not as sharp as I used to be. And yet I easily best you at every encounter.

I suppose you have a different take on why the Declaration is so different in tone than the Constitution.
I do. It is because I am not a dummy. I am surprised you so willingly acknowledge that you are.



Why would a group of influencers from pulpits, newspapers, and businesses get together and call for and end to tyranny, injustice, inequality, and no representation in government, then give us a document that makes our individual votes not count to the degree that a Presidential candidate can win the vote by over 3 million ballots, yet still lose an election?

Unlike you, they read. Unlike you, they were aware of how dangerous a democracy can be to a people.

Representatives are selected by a direct vote of the people. Elections are frequent.
Senators were to be selected by the States not the people. Elections were far less frequent. The Senators were selected indirectly by the people.

The President is indirectly selected in such a way that every state, no matter its population, influences the outcome. A presidential candidate who fails to appeal to the populations in every state can lose the election.



Why did these freedom-loving founders set up an elitist representative class, a class that speaks for all of us? That would make these Founder's ill-intentioned liars and manipulators, or really dumb and short-sighted. Far from the American genius they are portrayed as either way.
The error is wholly yours.

[RadioGod]

The President is not selected directly. Representatives are. The Senators should be selected by each State's legislators.

I think the people in government should have zero say about who should be in government. Hell, I would even go so far as to get rid of the house all together. No reason the people can't vote on House Bills directly, too.

[MisterVeritis]

The President is not selected directly. Representatives are. The Senators should be selected by each State's legislators.

What? No. Congressmen and women represent their constituents at a Federal level. State legislators only do so for their State's inhabitants. Pass.
Representatives directly represent the people.
Senators represent the States (and indirectly represent the people). This is the way the Constitution was established. We should return to it.

If both the Senators and Representatives directly represent the people then we should eliminate the Senate. It is superfluous.

[RadioGod]

You should consider reading from time to time. Putin is rotting your brain.

I have made no claims of relying on Sean Hannity. You did lay a claim to Putin. You are welcome to him.


It is true I am not as sharp as I used to be. And yet I easily best you at every encounter.

I do. It is because I am not a dummy. I am surprised you so willingly acknowledge that you are.




Unlike you, they read. Unlike you, they were aware of how dangerous a democracy can be to a people.

Representatives are selected by a direct vote of the people. Elections are frequent.
Senators were to be selected by the States not the people. Elections were far less frequent. The Senators were selected indirectly by the people.

The President is indirectly selected in such a way that every state, no matter its population, influences the outcome. A presidential candidate who fails to appeal to the populations in every state can lose the election.



The error is wholly yours.
You must have taken a double shot of Geritol this morning. Since when is a democracy dangerous? Letting people vote their conscious, their ideals, or what their rationale tells them is the right thing to do? A government supposedly in place to protect and preserve society and the people's ideals, should somehow act in contradiction to the same by preventing a direct vote? Is government afraid that a direct vote of the people will end corruption, shrink government itself, and let the people decide for themselves what freedom and fairness are?
And you call me crazy? LOL.

[MisterVeritis]

I think the people in government should have zero say about who should be in government. Hell, I would even go so far as to get rid of the house all together. No reason the people can't vote on House Bills directly, too.
I doubt anyone wants to work all day, then come home and read for three to four hours on a dozen critical topics before directly voting. This tells me you lack sense.

[MisterVeritis]

You must have taken a double shot of Geritol this morning. Since when is a democracy dangerous? Letting people vote their conscious, their ideals, or what their rationale tells them is the right thing to do? A government supposedly in place to protect and preserve society and the people's ideals, should somehow act in contradiction to the same by preventing a direct vote? Is government afraid that a direct vote of the people will end corruption, shrink government itself, and let the people decide for themselves what freedom and fairness are?
And you call me crazy? LOL.
Democracies have always been dangerous. Most end in dictatorships. I cannot help that you don't read (effectively).

[MisterVeritis]

You must have taken a double shot of Geritol this morning. Since when is a democracy dangerous? Letting people vote their conscious, their ideals, or what their rationale tells them is the right thing to do? A government supposedly in place to protect and preserve society and the people's ideals, should somehow act in contradiction to the same by preventing a direct vote? Is government afraid that a direct vote of the people will end corruption, shrink government itself, and let the people decide for themselves what freedom and fairness are?
And you call me crazy? LOL.
If you want a direct vote run for office.

[RadioGod]

I doubt anyone wants to work all day, then come home and read for three to four hours on a dozen critical topics before directly voting. This tells me you lack sense.

I know you are right. I know not many want to. But if we want liberty and our informed vote to count, we can't be alright with letting other's speak for ourselves.

[RadioGod]

So what is the need for a Legislative body of any type? Just put everything to referendum? Isnt a legislative body unfair. What if my Congressman casts a vote I disagree with? Shouldn't I be able to vote directly on everything? You logic is flawed and would lead to tyranny of the majority
That would be reasonable. A president for times of true national emergencies. Maybe a Senate made up of 1 rep per state. Then everything else has to be run through the people's vote.

[MisterVeritis]

I know you are right. I know not many want to. But if we want liberty and our informed vote to count, we can't be alright with letting other's speak for ourselves.
In my opinion, you are not a serious poster.

[Private Pickle]

I appreciate your well thought out reply, even though I agree with none of it.

You could do me the courtesy of responding to my arguments rather than just saying you don't agree. We are after all on a political debate forum and I'm trying my hardest to spur on political discourse here.


And I would offer the only reason we have become the most powerful nation in the world today isn't because of our values and sheer awesomeness. It is because the big businesses got that way by leeching off of us. They bribe other's in other countries with our tax money. They broker deals using our national credit as collateral. We are so dumb and easily manipulated as a people, the true elites have no choice but to use us and prop us up on the world stage.

So we enjoy one of the greatest lifestyles on Earth because those leaches of big business who happen to employ us broker deals in our favor thereby keeping us employed while using the national credit that they have created in order to manipulate the very people that enjoy the greatest lifestyle on Earth? Meanwhile propping us up as enjoying that very same lifestyle that others could and should enjoy?

Being great because we are dumb and clueless is nothing to be proud of. It's an embarrassment.

If that were the case you might be right. But I don't think nations become great because they are dumb and clueless. I mean if that were the case then North Korea would be a great nation.

[RadioGod]

Democracies have always been dangerous. Most end in dictatorships. I cannot help that you don't read (effectively).

We have a dictatorship now, or a partial one. When the President gains permanent powers the Constitution assigns the Legislature and Judicial branches, do you see this trend declining anytime soon? Look at the AUMF after 9-11. Was that meant to give Congress's authority to declare war to the President forever? I could go on and on.
What I am saying here is we are in a Republic, and still turning into a dictatorship. No form of government is exempt from trying times and a strong leader stepping up to fix everything with consent of dim-witted or terrified people.
Your argument that democracy is dangerous is weak, at best.

[RadioGod]

If you want a direct vote run for office.

Only if you and I get to publicly debate. And to get ahead of the controversy before it begins, I did inhale when I was younger. Deeply. LOL.

[RadioGod]

In my opinion, you are not a serious poster.

If it makes you feel better, go with that. :) I had an enjoyable morning with you, Mr.V. I hope it is not too cold where you are. And if it is, I hope you have a warm home and are comfortable. Just try not to think about how it is being heated. How you are paying for that electricity twice. Once through your bill, then again through taxpayer subsidizing of it's production and distribution. Even in a communist country we would only pay once. Good day:)

[Private Pickle]

The President is not selected directly. Representatives are. The Senators should be selected by each State's legislators.

Why? That doesn't make any sense.


Representatives directly represent the people.

As such should be elected directly by the people.

Senators represent the States (and indirectly represent the people). This is the way the Constitution was established. We should return to it.
If both the Senators and Representatives directly represent the people then we should eliminate the Senate. It is superfluous.

That also doesn't make sense. Representatives are based on populations within the States. Senators are based upon the State's themselves. 2 each regardless of their populations. Similar to why the electoral college exists.

[MisterVeritis]

Democracies have always been dangerous. Most end in dictatorships. I cannot help that you don't read (effectively).

We have a dictatorship now, or a partial one.
Nonsense.


When the President gains permanent powers the Constitution assigns the Legislature and Judicial branches, do you see this trend declining anytime soon?
In my opinion, it is unconstitutional for the Congress to cede its lawmaking powers to the Executive branch. The Congress can remove the authority it unconstitutionally granted at any time.

I have no idea what judicial powers you believe the Courts have granted the Executive branch. The Judicial branch took powers not granted by the Constitution. In my opinion, it will take a Constitutional amendment to fix what the justices broke.


Look at the AUMF after 9-11. Was that meant to give Congress's authority to declare war to the President forever? I could go on and on.
An authorization for the use of force is a war declaration. It remains in force for those forces it cites.

What I am saying here is we are in a Republic, and still turning into a dictatorship. No form of government is exempt from trying times and a strong leader stepping up to fix everything with consent of dim-witted or terrified people.

It has become a tyranny. It is not a dictatorship.

Your argument that democracy is dangerous is weak, at best.
You claim my argument was weak and yet you did nothing to counter it. Might I suggest you look at a hundred or so democracies throughout history then determine which of them had happy endings?

[MisterVeritis]

Only if you and I get to publicly debate. And to get ahead of the controversy before it begins, I did inhale when I was younger. Deeply. LOL.
Why would I debate you publicly? I have no interest in public office.

Besides, I beat you every time we have a discussion. Do you believe a steady stream of defeats will garner the sympathy vote?

[MisterVeritis]

1) The President is not selected directly.
2) Representatives are.
3) The Senators should be selected by each State's legislators.

Why? That doesn't make any sense.
I made three statements. I numbered them for your conveniences. Explain what does not make sense to you.
Representatives directly represent the people.


As such should be elected directly by the people.
And they are.
Senators represent the States (and indirectly represent the people). This is the way the Constitution was established. We should return to it.

If both the Senators and Representatives directly represent the people then we should eliminate the Senate. It is superfluous.

That also doesn't make sense. Representatives are based on populations within the States. Senators are based upon the State's themselves. 2 each regardless of their populations. Similar to why the electoral college exists.
There is no similarity anymore. Once the Progressives convinced the people they should directly vote for senators there is no longer a difference between senators and representatives. Both now directly represent the people. The States, who created the federal government, were effectively cut out of the process. So return control of the States senators to the State legislature or end the Senate.

[Tahuyaman]

[/I][/COLOR]Why? That doesn't make any sense.



As such should be elected directly by the people.


That also doesn't make sense. Representatives are based on populations within the States. Senators are based upon the State's themselves. 2 each regardless of their populations. Similar to why the electoral college exists.


It does make sense but you need to go back in history and see what the framers intended.


Senators initially were supposed to be elected by individual state legislatures to represent the interests of the state's. Congressmen were intended to be elected by the citizens to represent their interests.

[DGUtley]

[/I][/COLOR]Why? That doesn't make any sense. As such should be elected directly by the people. That also doesn't make sense. Representatives are based on populations within the States. Senators are based upon the State's themselves. 2 each regardless of their populations. Similar to why the electoral college exists.

The original system had the Senators selected by the states. The states could recall them. If you think about the Feds being a creation of the states it makes sense. Personally, I think we should go back there and give the states back some of their power.

[Orion Rules]

Another tidbit this morning is House Joint Resolution 7, which proposes the electoral college is outdated, and calls for an amendment to the Constitution that makes the President and Vice-President offices to be filled by a direct vote of the people.
In the bill itself, Thomas Jefferson is quoted;

Whereas Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”;

Full Text of HJ Res 7- https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hjres7/text

Quick link to story- https://www.dailywire.com/news/39931/breaking-democrats-introduce-bill-eliminate-ryan-saavedra




If to take notice of who signed the Declaration of Independence, as their signatures remained aloof to The United States Constitution, that nothing shall deny the just:

That societies may be formed out of rebellion(s), for the status quo that has not delivered, except that it holds power to see to it that real progress remains stagnant.

[Private Pickle]

1) The President is not selected directly.
2) Representatives are.
3) The Senators should be selected by each State's legislators.

I made three statements. I numbered them for your conveniences. Explain what does not make sense to you.

It all makes sense to me. But you're advocating for something different aren't you?

Representatives directly represent the people.


And they are.
Senators represent the States (and indirectly represent the people). This is the way the Constitution was established. We should return to it.


Return to it implies something has changed. Nothing has.

If both the Senators and Representatives directly represent the people then we should eliminate the Senate. It is superfluous.

There are 2 Senators that represent their States regardless of population. How that is superfluous is beyond me given each State is granted the right of two individuals who speak for their State regardless of population dispersal.


There is no similarity anymore. Once the Progressives convinced the people they should directly vote for senators there is no longer a difference between senators and representatives. Both now directly represent the people. The States, who created the federal government, were effectively cut out of the process. So return control of the States senators to the State legislature or end the Senate.

So you want a pure Democratic system within a Republic. Sorry. We are a Republic.

[Ethereal]

Absolutely horrible idea that is profoundly anti-democratic, despite portrayals to the contrary.

Because genuine democracy is something that can only happen at a small scale, locally.

Furthermore, a genuine American republic is something that can only exist in the context of a federation, where the States remain sovereign.

To combine 50 electorates and a multitude of localities into one, nebulous mass would be to destroy what remains of the republican and democratic character of the USA.

[Ethereal]

Another tidbit this morning is House Joint Resolution 7, which proposes the electoral college is outdated, and calls for an amendment to the Constitution that makes the President and Vice-President offices to be filled by a direct vote of the people.
In the bill itself, Thomas Jefferson is quoted;

Whereas Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”;

Full Text of HJ Res 7- https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hjres7/text

Quick link to story- https://www.dailywire.com/news/39931/breaking-democrats-introduce-bill-eliminate-ryan-saavedra




They quoted Thomas Jefferson... too funny.

Jefferson would have HATED this idea, obviously, as he was arguably the strongest proponent of State sovereignty out of all the major founding fathers.

To eliminate the electoral college and replace it with a nominal "popular vote" would be to eradicate the sovereignty of States with regards to electing the president.

[Private Pickle]

It does make sense but you need to go back in history and see what the framers intended.


Senators initially were supposed to be elected by individual state legislatures to represent the interests of the state's. Congressmen were intended to be elected by the citizens to represent their interests.
Let's step away from the Congressional discussion for a sec. Do you think electing Senators through the State Legislature would be beneficial for Republicans?

[Private Pickle]

The original system had the Senators selected by the states. The states could recall them. If you think about the Feds being a creation of the states it makes sense. Personally, I think we should go back there and give the states back some of their power.
You said the original system. What changed?

[Ethereal]

You said the original system. What changed?
The "progressive" era happened.

[Private Pickle]

The "progressive" era happened.

Saw you replied. Was super interested in what you had to say. I was somewhat disappointed. Obvious answer is obvious.

[Green Arrow]

We’re probably 20+ years away from ever doing away with the EC. In the meantime, I favor a compromise proposal: no more winner-take-all. Issue EC votes for each state based on the popular vote percentage. So, if Candidate A gets 60% of the vote in California, Candidate B gets 30%, and Candidate C gets 10%, then 60% of California’s 55 EC votes (33) go to Candidate A, 30% (16.5) go to Candidate B, and 10% (5.5) go to Candidate C.

[RadioGod]

They quoted Thomas Jefferson... too funny.

Jefferson would have HATED this idea, obviously, as he was arguably the strongest proponent of State sovereignty out of all the major founding fathers.

To eliminate the electoral college and replace it with a nominal "popular vote" would be to eradicate the sovereignty of States with regards to electing the president.
No. Eliminating the electoral college in favor of a direct vote means the people are heard. Each of them. I find it uncanny how you have devolved into this. Just so you know, the States should not elect a President. The people should. Why even bother holding elections if each vote don't count and is skewed about with Jerry-mandering and such? We love to hold up our democratic ideals and talk mad trash when we are instigating regime change in another country. But that very idea of democracy is not even held to by us. It is even deemed "dangerous". LOL.
And as for Jefferson, do you think he is above having his words thrown back at him? He is not. He's nobody special. Just a wanna-be aristocrat who wanted the newfound American population to be his and his friend's new peasants. I quoted it because it's in the bill and it was a good point.

[Tahuyaman]

Let's step away from the Congressional discussion for a sec. Do you think electing Senators through the State Legislature would be beneficial for Republicans?


I don't know if it would benefit Republicans. I would like to see us get back to governing in the way it was intended.

[DGUtley]

You said the original system. What changed?

The 17th Amendment.

[RadioGod]

We’re probably 20+ years away from ever doing away with the EC. In the meantime, I favor a compromise proposal: no more winner-take-all. Issue EC votes for each state based on the popular vote percentage. So, if Candidate A gets 60% of the vote in California, Candidate B gets 30%, and Candidate C gets 10%, then 60% of California’s 55 EC votes (33) go to Candidate A, 30% (16.5) go to Candidate B, and 10% (5.5) go to Candidate C.
This seems fair and took some thought. But the process for this would be:
1.) Count all the votes in a State.
2.) Take the electoral votes for the State and have an Election Board do all the math and submit an official vote tally.
3.) All the State's votes get added up in their fractions by a Federal Election Board, then tallied for an over-all winner.
The result of this would be a more accurate result of the will of the people than the current Electoral College.
OR
1.) Count all the votes in a State.
2.) The Federal Election Board tallies them and certifies the candidate with the most votes.
This would be the first step in the process anyways, and it cuts out all the nonsense. It is exactly accurate and exactly represents the will of each and every citizen.

[Ethereal]

Saw you replied. Was super interested in what you had to say. I was somewhat disappointed. Obvious answer is obvious.
I'm not wrong.

It was the "progressive" movement that changed how Senators were elected.

And now the modern iteration of the "progressive" movement wants to change how presidents are elected.

It's about "progress", you see.

[countryboy]

We’re probably 20+ years away from ever doing away with the EC. In the meantime, I favor a compromise proposal: no more winner-take-all. Issue EC votes for each state based on the popular vote percentage. So, if Candidate A gets 60% of the vote in California, Candidate B gets 30%, and Candidate C gets 10%, then 60% of California’s 55 EC votes (33) go to Candidate A, 30% (16.5) go to Candidate B, and 10% (5.5) go to Candidate C.
Lol, how would that be any different than abolishing the EC?

[DGUtley]

I agree with the Admiral: if you are going to change the original compromise balance to weigh it to the big urban states you have to give all states the ability to opt out.

[Ethereal]

No. Eliminating the electoral college in favor of a direct vote means the people are heard. Each of them.

Actually, it will make an individual's vote even less meaningful than it is now.

Instead of your vote being counted among a few million people in your own State, it will be counted among hundreds of millions of people from across the entire country.


I find it uncanny how you have devolved into this.

Not sure what you mean. I've always been against nationalizing the presidential election. The US is a federation of States and should remain that way.


Just so you know, the States should not elect a President. The people should.

The States were created by the people in order to represent the people.


Why even bother holding elections if each vote don't count and is skewed about with Jerry-mandering and such? We love to hold up our democratic ideals and talk mad trash when we are instigating regime change in another country. But that very idea of democracy is not even held to by us. It is even deemed "dangerous". LOL.

Nationalizing the presidential election is not democracy, it's nationalism.


And as for Jefferson, do you think he is above having his words thrown back at him? He is not. He's nobody special. Just a wanna-be aristocrat who wanted the newfound American population to be his and his friend's new peasants. I quoted it because it's in the bill and it was a good point.

LOL

[Captdon]

Wrong. The Framers understood that a direct vote of the people in their time would be extremely taxing and difficult. And they also understood that in supplanting themselves in the place of the former monarchy, an electoral college would make overthrow by vote more difficult. They were not trying to be fair and democratic. But they wanted it to appear that way. That's what comrade Putin told me, anyways.

You are the one who is wrong. They made the House a direct election by the people. Another fact you screwed up.

[Captdon]

You must have taken a double shot of Geritol this morning. Since when is a democracy dangerous? Letting people vote their conscious, their ideals, or what their rationale tells them is the right thing to do? A government supposedly in place to protect and preserve society and the people's ideals, should somehow act in contradiction to the same by preventing a direct vote? Is government afraid that a direct vote of the people will end corruption, shrink government itself, and let the people decide for themselves what freedom and fairness are?
And you call me crazy? LOL.

He isn't alone in calling you crazy.

Direct democracy would lead to demagoguery.

[Captdon]

If it makes you feel better, go with that. :) I had an enjoyable morning with you, Mr.V. I hope it is not too cold where you are. And if it is, I hope you have a warm home and are comfortable. Just try not to think about how it is being heated. How you are paying for that electricity twice. Once through your bill, then again through taxpayer subsidizing of it's production and distribution. Even in a communist country we would only pay once. Good day:)

In a communist country you wouldn't have any a good bit of the time. Go live in NK and tell us how it works, unless they kill you.

[Max Rockatansky]

Another tidbit this morning is House Joint Resolution 7, which proposes the electoral college is outdated, and calls for an amendment to the Constitution that makes the President and Vice-President offices to be filled by a direct vote of the people.
In the bill itself, Thomas Jefferson is quoted;

Whereas Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”;

Full Text of HJ Res 7- https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hjres7/text

Quick link to story- https://www.dailywire.com/news/39931/breaking-democrats-introduce-bill-eliminate-ryan-saavedra



Go for it. I prefer the LWLs to be pissing up a rope chasing something that requires a Constitutional Amendment such as eliminating the EC rather than chipping away at my rights as law abiding gun owner.

[RadioGod]

You are the one who is wrong. They made the House a direct election by the people. Another fact you screwed up.

So, we have gone into the realm of making things up again, have we? I never said the House was not by direct vote. But lets get real, do the majority of Reps in the House represent us? No. They do not. They represent the people they are indebted to, the elites they think they can join by doing their bidding at every turn. Those same Reps submit bills written by Corporate lawyers and lobby groups. They don't even read them. A direct election of all 3 branches of the Federal Government would be nice, and would help mitigate the corruption.
Combined with some form of HR 1, which would address money in politics, and we would be on our way to the end of billionaire dominance, and start having a country with the average American's interests at heart.
Others see this clearly, but you cannot. Don't worry, you are not alone. About 20% of this country is with you. That is not a majority, but at least you're not lonely.

[Peter1469]

Another tidbit this morning is House Joint Resolution 7, which proposes the electoral college is outdated, and calls for an amendment to the Constitution that makes the President and Vice-President offices to be filled by a direct vote of the people.
In the bill itself, Thomas Jefferson is quoted;

Whereas Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”;

Full Text of HJ Res 7- https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hjres7/text

Quick link to story- https://www.dailywire.com/news/39931/breaking-democrats-introduce-bill-eliminate-ryan-saavedra



Absolutely not.

[Peter1469]

You are wrong. The electoral college was instituted so that the smaller states would have protection from the tyrannical rule by the majority of the larger states. Sound familiar? With out this mechanism some states would never have ratified the Constitution.

Before you tell others they are wrong try being right
Correct, RG's opinion is baseless in American history.

[RadioGod]

Actually, it will make an individual's vote even less meaningful than it is now.

Instead of your vote being counted among a few million people in your own State, it will be counted among hundreds of millions of people from across the entire country.



Not sure what you mean. I've always been against nationalizing the presidential election. The US is a federation of States and should remain that way.



The States were created by the people in order to represent the people.



Nationalizing the presidential election is not democracy, it's nationalism.



LOL

That's funny. If everyone's vote is counted, added up, and there is a winner, does it matter if the voter pool was 1,000 or 10,000,000? No, it doesn't. The only thing that changes is the inability to play with the numbers. To fractionalize the voters into groups and manipulate the outcome. Anyone who thinks that is a better system needs a CAT scan.
There was a time when citizens of a State might have thought of themselves, not as Americans, but as being from their State. Distinct and separate from Americans from other States. I'm sure this type of thinking is where State's rights in the Constitution came from. But really? In this day and age? And I get called un-American.

[Max Rockatansky]

That's funny. If everyone's vote is counted, added up, and there is a winner, does it matter if the voter pool was 1,000 or 10,000,000? No, it doesn't. The only thing that changes is the inability to play with the numbers. To fractionalize the voters into groups and manipulate the outcome. Anyone who thinks that is a better system needs a CAT scan.
There was a time when citizens of a State might have thought of themselves, not as Americans, but as being from their State. Distinct and separate from Americans from other States. I'm sure this type of thinking is where State's rights in the Constitution came from. But really? In this day and age? And I get called un-American.
An excellent pipe dream. What's in that pipe, BTW? I'm curious.

The EC can't be removed without a Constitutional amendment. Are you trolling or do you simply not understand the process? I can teach the Constitutional amendment process to you if you like.

[Peter1469]

I appreciate the compromise. So, if a county is split 49% to 51%, the vote from the county would be 1 vote in favor of the 51%. I would predict an unprecedented change in county borders within every single State. It would get rigged.
The only way to best represent the vote of each person, is to count the vote of each person. Add them up, the majority wins.
Our Founders were much wiser than you. Your idea stinks.

[Peter1469]

We’re probably 20+ years away from ever doing away with the EC. In the meantime, I favor a compromise proposal: no more winner-take-all. Issue EC votes for each state based on the popular vote percentage. So, if Candidate A gets 60% of the vote in California, Candidate B gets 30%, and Candidate C gets 10%, then 60% of California’s 55 EC votes (33) go to Candidate A, 30% (16.5) go to Candidate B, and 10% (5.5) go to Candidate C.
Some states do that.

[Peter1469]

Repeal the 17th Amendment, get the federal government out of state affairs (see Art. 1, sec. 8) and restore the Republic.

[Max Rockatansky]

Repeal the 17th Amendment, get the federal government out of state affairs (see Art. 1, sec. 8) and restore the Republic.
About as practical and attainable as RadioGod 's desire to amend the Constitution.

[Orion Rules]

Fine as long as the states are given the chance to leave the Union if they disagree. Our Republic wont die that easy

You are joking. What has the "Constitutional" 'Republic' done but rip off both sides of the people as the aisles are ready to be sent away.

A "Republic" is to give the sense that its citizens understand what a racket most of government has become in terms of titles of nobility.

Thomas Jefferson wrote of freedom and liberty, that a Black man was not regarded as his lesser, but his equal to who were their real masters.

The slaveholders were of the Levites, as Genesis 49:5-8 warns of Simeon and Levi, who hamstrung oxen, to not become partners.

[Green Arrow]

Lol, how would that be any different than abolishing the EC?

Besides the fact that there still wouldn’t be a national popular vote, the overall winner of the state would still get the majority of the EC votes in that state, and the EC would objectively still exist?

[Green Arrow]

He isn't alone in calling you crazy.

Direct democracy would lead to demagoguery.

Like we haven’t had that for most of our existence already...

[Green Arrow]

Some states do that.

I don’t think they do it like I am proposing, I will look into that. Regardless, it needs to be the standard in every state.

[Captdon]

Like we haven’t had that for most of our existence already...

No, we haven't had that.

[Dr. Who]

You are wrong. The electoral college was instituted so that the smaller states would have protection from the tyrannical rule by the majority of the larger states. Sound familiar? With out this mechanism some states would never have ratified the Constitution.

Before you tell others they are wrong try being right
Why should some less populated states have more say on a relative basis than states with larger populations? Isn't reducing people's votes to 3/4 of a vote or 1/2 a vote or 1/4 of a vote also a tyranny? Is the tyranny of the minority preferable to the tyranny of the majority?

It's ironic that when it comes to doing this sort of thing with less advantaged people in education or employment there is great consternation and pontification that there is no such thing as equality. Yet here is social justice built right into the Constitution. The State of Wyoming has four times as many votes per person as the people of Texas, California and Florida. Wyoming's population of 577,737 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_and_territories_of_the_United_State s_by_population) is about that of an average mid-sized city.

[countryboy]

Why should some less populated states have more say on a relative basis than states with larger populations? Isn't reducing people's votes to 3/4 of a vote or 1/2 a vote or 1/4 of a vote also a tyranny? Is the tyranny of the minority preferable to the tyranny of the majority?

It's ironic that when it comes to doing this sort of thing with less advantaged people in education or employment there is great consternation and pontification that there is no such thing as equality. Yet here is social justice built right into the Constitution. The State of Wyoming has four times as many votes per person as the people of Texas, California and Florida. Wyoming's population of 577,737 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_and_territories_of_the_United_State s_by_population) is about that of an average mid-sized city.

Mob rule is never a good thing. Why should liberals on the East and West coast control the entire country?

[Green Arrow]

No, we haven't had that.
Do you know what demagoguery is? 2016 was the poster election for demagoguery. So was 1800. The GOP in 1928 circulated pamphlets claiming a Hoover presidency would lead to a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage (hilarious considering what ACTUALLY happened), how is that not demagoguery?

[Green Arrow]

Mob rule is never a good thing. Why should liberals on the East and West coast control the entire country?
You do realize, I hope, that you're essentially arguing that your ideology is unpopular and could never withstand a vote of the People, right?

[Dr. Who]

Mob rule is never a good thing. Why should liberals on the East and West coast control the entire country?
IIRC rule by the minority didn't work so well for those who fled the tyranny of the British Crown.

[Mister D]

You do realize, I hope, that you're essentially arguing that your ideology is unpopular and could never withstand a vote of the People, right?

There is no People.

[Green Arrow]

There is no people.

That's a semantic argument.

[Mister D]

That's a semantic argument.

No, it's a social, cultural and political argument. There is no "People". The days when one could realistically refer to such a thing are long gone.

[Mister D]

I agree with the Admiral: if you are going to change the original compromise balance to weigh it to the big urban states you have to give all states the ability to opt out.

Agreed.

[Mister D]

Actually, it will make an individual's vote even less meaningful than it is now.

Instead of your vote being counted among a few million people in your own State, it will be counted among hundreds of millions of people from across the entire country.



Not sure what you mean. I've always been against nationalizing the presidential election. The US is a federation of States and should remain that way.



The States were created by the people in order to represent the people.



Nationalizing the presidential election is not democracy, it's nationalism.



LOL

You mean exercising my 1/100,000,00 of political power isn't meaningful? I was having such a power to the people moment too.

[texan]

I love it when liberals lose. It’s always the same shit.

[Orion Rules]

Mob rule is never a good thing. Why should liberals on the East and West coast control the entire country?

Your demagoguery is mob rule made itself appear benign compared to your leveraging. Since government is a business, all who are citizens living within its domain(s) have/s a say in the governing. There is no possible way one leader can rule an entire country and hope its creditors the best.

A nation, so deep in debt, that its central taxation system is pulled into question for the amount of debt Americans hold because of it.

With one war garnered after another war began of the one never stopped, just changed hands to create a greater gulf where hell is at.

[Peter1469]

Why should some less populated states have more say on a relative basis than states with larger populations? Isn't reducing people's votes to 3/4 of a vote or 1/2 a vote or 1/4 of a vote also a tyranny? Is the tyranny of the minority preferable to the tyranny of the majority?

It's ironic that when it comes to doing this sort of thing with less advantaged people in education or employment there is great consternation and pontification that there is no such thing as equality. Yet here is social justice built right into the Constitution. The State of Wyoming has four times as many votes per person as the people of Texas, California and Florida. Wyoming's population of 577,737 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_and_territories_of_the_United_State s_by_population) is about that of an average mid-sized city.
Because the US was never a direct democracy. States are suppose to be sovereign only ceding limited power to the federal government. To eliminate the EC (along with the 17th Amendment) destroys the sovereignty of the states. This would be a radical change to the US.

[DGUtley]

Why should some less populated states have more say on a relative basis than states with larger populations? Isn't reducing people's votes to 3/4 of a vote or 1/2 a vote or 1/4 of a vote also a tyranny? Is the tyranny of the minority preferable to the tyranny of the majority? It's ironic that when it comes to doing this sort of thing with less advantaged people in education or employment there is great consternation and pontification that there is no such thing as equality. Yet here is social justice built right into the Constitution. The State of Wyoming has four times as many votes per person as the people of Texas, California and Florida. Wyoming's population of 577,737 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_and_territories_of_the_United_State s_by_population) is about that of an average mid-sized city.
This was a negotiated compromise to get the smaller states to sign on to the Republic. It was to prevent the tyranny of the majority. Again, if you want to change that, you have to give us the chance to opt out. 600 times there's been efforts to amend the electoral college. All have failed. https://www.adn.com/opinions/2017/11/10/left-cries-foul-but-electoral-college-prevents-tyranny-of-the-majority/

[Ethereal]

That's funny. If everyone's vote is counted, added up, and there is a winner, does it matter if the voter pool was 1,000 or 10,000,000?

Of course it matters. It's basic math.

If your vote is counted in a pool of 1,000 voters, then you have a 0.1% impact on the result

If your vote is counted in a pool of 10,000,000 voters, then you have a 0.00001% impact on the result.


No, it doesn't. The only thing that changes is the inability to play with the numbers. To fractionalize the voters into groups and manipulate the outcome. Anyone who thinks that is a better system needs a CAT scan.

It maintains the sovereignty and identity of the States, and the autonomy of localities, which is necessary to the preservation of the federal character of the US.


There was a time when citizens of a State might have thought of themselves, not as Americans, but as being from their State.

Again, there is no dichotomy between thinking of oneself as a resident of one's State and an American. Both can be true at the same time. Indeed, being from a particular State and identifying with that State is part of what it means to be an American.


Distinct and separate from Americans from other States. I'm sure this type of thinking is where State's rights in the Constitution came from. But really? In this day and age? And I get called un-American.

Well, if the shoe fits...

[Ethereal]

Why should some less populated states have more say on a relative basis than states with larger populations? Isn't reducing people's votes to 3/4 of a vote or 1/2 a vote or 1/4 of a vote also a tyranny? Is the tyranny of the minority preferable to the tyranny of the majority?

They don't have more say. More populated States have more representatives in the House and more votes in the electoral college.


It's ironic that when it comes to doing this sort of thing with less advantaged people in education or employment there is great consternation and pontification that there is no such thing as equality. Yet here is social justice built right into the Constitution. The State of Wyoming has four times as many votes per person as the people of Texas, California and Florida. Wyoming's population of 577,737 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_and_territories_of_the_United_State s_by_population) is about that of an average mid-sized city.

Are you talking about the number of House representative each State has or the number of electoral votes they have in a presidential election?

Because if you're talking about the former, then I totally agree that it needs to be changed so that more populous States get more representatives in the House. Unfortunately, a law was passed which capped the number of representatives at 435. Just one more profoundly anti-democratic law to emerge from the so-called "progressive" era.

[Ethereal]

IIRC rule by the minority didn't work so well for those who fled the tyranny of the British Crown.

The electoral college does not represent rule by the minority. Indeed, it represents home rule, which was arguably the main issue being fought for during the American revolution.

[Ethereal]

That's a semantic argument.
Semantic or not, it's true. The idea of a unified, monolithic "American people" is chimerical at best.

And even if we could refer to a coherent "American people", then the sovereignty and independence of their State governments would be a major part of their identity.

[Ethereal]

No, it's a social, cultural and political argument. There is no "People". The days when one could realistically refer to such a thing are long gone.

I'd say it's also an anthropological argument, since there seems to be a fairly hard limit on how large a group can become before losing coherence.

[Private Pickle]

I don't know if it would benefit Republicans. I would like to see us get back to governing in the way it was intended.
Good luck with that...

[Private Pickle]

The 17th Amendment.
Why didn't you go to the 11th Amendment since ya know...change...?

[Private Pickle]

I'm not wrong.

It was the "progressive" movement that changed how Senators were elected.

And now the modern iteration of the "progressive" movement wants to change how presidents are elected.

It's about "progress", you see.

Cool...cool..cool..

[Tahuyaman]

Good luck with that...

I never claimed it will happen. It won't.

[CaveDog]

Because the US was never a direct democracy. States are suppose to be sovereign only ceding limited power to the federal government. To eliminate the EC (along with the 17th Amendment) destroys the sovereignty of the states. This would be a radical change to the US.

^ This

[Dr. Who]

They don't have more say. More populated States have more representatives in the House and more votes in the electoral college.



Are you talking about the number of House representative each State has or the number of electoral votes they have in a presidential election?

Because if you're talking about the former, then I totally agree that it needs to be changed so that more populous States get more representatives in the House. Unfortunately, a law was passed which capped the number of representatives at 435. Just one more profoundly anti-democratic law to emerge from the so-called "progressive" era.
I believe that the link I provided shows both the population per electoral vote and representation in the House. In terms of electoral votes, the people of Wyoming have four times more say than the three most populous states. They have one representative in the House. California has 53 seats in the house or 746,359 people per seat. Wyoming with 1 Rep, has 577,737 per seat. Texas and Florida are even worse off than California in both respects.

[Dr. Who]

The electoral college does not represent rule by the minority. Indeed, it represents home rule, which was arguably the main issue being fought for during the American revolution.

As it turns out, it is essentially minority rule. There are more States with lower populations than those with higher populations - those with the higher populations draw people from the rest of the nation for a variety of reasons but one reason is jobs. By and large, they also tend to give more to the Fed than they take. So not only are they paying more in taxes to take care of those States that don't invest in things like education to make their populations more attractive to investment, they are rewarded with less say in government on a per capita basis. The only saving grace is that in many states they allow the popular vote to stand in term of the EC vote, but it doesn't alter the fact that there is still a degree of taxation without (adequate) representation happening.

[slackercruster]

No way. That would result in a few of pockets of liberal metro elites basically ruling the nation. It would lead to a rebellion.

Yes, a repeal would pretty much guarantees perpetual dem rule. Does not matter what The Framers thought, this is the importance of the EC of today.

In addition, if the dems can add the 16 yo vote, then reps are pretty much done for the foreseeable future.

[slackercruster]

Fine as long as the states are given the chance to leave the Union if they disagree. Our Republic wont die that easy

Yes, agree. But the dems demand indoctrinating their agenda into all states. They are not happy getting power over some, they want it over all.

[Ethereal]

I believe that the link I provided shows both the population per electoral vote and representation in the House. In terms of electoral votes, the people of Wyoming have four times more say than the three most populous states. They have one representative in the House. California has 53 seats in the house or 746,359 people per seat. Wyoming with 1 Rep, has 577,737 per seat. Texas and Florida are even worse off than California in both respects.

Okay, well the reason for that is because in 1911, the Congress passed a bill capping the amount of representatives at 435. It has nothing to do with the electoral college per se.

[Captdon]

I believe that the link I provided shows both the population per electoral vote and representation in the House. In terms of electoral votes, the people of Wyoming have four times more say than the three most populous states. They have one representative in the House. California has 53 seats in the house or 746,359 people per seat. Wyoming with 1 Rep, has 577,737 per seat. Texas and Florida are even worse off than California in both respects.

Should Wyoming not have even one? The system isn't perfect, it works though. It will never be changed.

[Ethereal]

As it turns out, it is essentially minority rule. There are more States with lower populations than those with higher populations - those with the higher populations draw people from the rest of the nation for a variety of reasons but one reason is jobs.

How is it minority rule when the amount of electoral votes a State has is proportional to its population?

And the US is not a "nation", it is a federation of States.


By and large, they also tend to give more to the Fed than they take.

That depends on the accounting principles one uses. For example, if we include the huge monetary subsidies that go to places like New York City and its financial sector, then the scale tips massively in the other direction.


So not only are they paying more in taxes to take care of those States that don't invest in things like education to make their populations more attractive to investment, they are rewarded with less say in government on a per capita basis. The only saving grace is that in many states they allow the popular vote to stand in term of the EC vote, but it doesn't alter the fact that there is still a degree of taxation without (adequate) representation happening.

But that is not because of the electoral college, but because of the Apportionment Act of 1911.

[Dr. Who]

Okay, well the reason for that is because in 1911, the Congress passed a bill capping the amount of representatives at 435. It has nothing to do with the electoral college per se.
It does in terms of the Presidential election.

[Captdon]

As it turns out, it is essentially minority rule. There are more States with lower populations than those with higher populations - those with the higher populations draw people from the rest of the nation for a variety of reasons but one reason is jobs. By and large, they also tend to give more to the Fed than they take. So not only are they paying more in taxes to take care of those States that don't invest in things like education to make their populations more attractive to investment, they are rewarded with less say in government on a per capita basis. The only saving grace is that in many states they allow the popular vote to stand in term of the EC vote, but it doesn't alter the fact that there is still a degree of taxation without (adequate) representation happening.

Bunk. The feds pay for welfare that some states don't want. That's the fed's problem. States don't ask for programs and aren't asking for the money. Quit voting for liberals and this wouldn't be true. The feds don't take care of anything here. They just allow some people to be leeches.

As to the population disparity in representation, how big a House of Representatives do you want? A thousand?

Only two states break up the EC vote. Maine gives 2 to the winner overall and one to the winner in each of its 2 districts. Nebraska does the same in its 3 districts.

[Ethereal]

It does in terms of the Presidential election.

The number of electoral votes a State gets is determined by how many representatives they have plus their two Senators.

But in 1911, the Congress passed a law capping the amount of representatives at 435.

So even though the populations of States have been increasing since then, their number of representatives has not.

So if a State has less electoral votes than they should relative to less populous States, it's not because of the electoral college, but because of the law passed in 1911.

[Dr. Who]

How is it minority rule when the amount of electoral votes a State has is proportional to its population?

And the US is not a "nation", it is a federation of States.



That depends on the accounting principles one uses. For example, if we include the huge monetary subsidies that go to places like New York City and its financial sector, then the scale tips massively in the other direction.



But that is not because of the electoral college, but because of the Apportionment Act of 1911.
I think it's pretty obnoxious that one's opinion regarding the national leader is diminished because one lives in the most highly taxed and economically productive parts of America. Perhaps that's why the electoral colleges are empowered to ignore the votes of the people and usurp that right in an elitist system that presumes that others know better than the electorate. Obviously, that option is rarely exercised because of the potential backlash, but the EC is nevertheless being used to manipulate elections, along with outrageously obvious gerrymandering.

I understand that the EC was a condition at the time of the creation of the Union. At this point which States are likely to want to go off on their own? Certainly not the low population States that tend to be the net beneficiaries of the Union. Texas might - they tend to be the most nationalistic about their State but it wouldn't benefit them to do so, given that they live on the Mexican border. New York could exist on their own. They have enough infrastructure, universities, large corporations and investment that they could separate and economically probably be better off. Most of the rest of the States would fall into second world status if they separated. California, Oregon and Washington would probably join up with Canada rather than go on their own - they are more ideologically aligned.

[Dr. Who]

How is it minority rule when the amount of electoral votes a State has is proportional to its population?

And the US is not a "nation", it is a federation of States.



That depends on the accounting principles one uses. For example, if we include the huge monetary subsidies that go to places like New York City and its financial sector, then the scale tips massively in the other direction.



But that is not because of the electoral college, but because of the Apportionment Act of 1911.
Even having your vote diminished because of where you live is a form of taxation without adequate representation, where the representative is the citizen who becomes a second or third class citizen in a Federal election.

[Ethereal]

I think it's pretty obnoxious that one's opinion regarding the national leader is diminished because one lives in the most highly taxed and economically productive parts of America. Perhaps that's why the electoral colleges are empowered to ignore the votes of the people and usurp that right in an elitist system that presumes that others know better than the electorate. Obviously, that option is rarely exercised because of the potential backlash, but the EC is nevertheless being used to manipulate elections, along with outrageously obvious gerrymandering.

The president isn't a "national leader".

The president is the chief executive of the federal government.

And according to the original intent of the federal constitution, the number of electoral votes a State has is directly proportional to its population. Given this, there is no reason why more populous States should have less than adequate representation in presidential elections.

As for your claim that the most populous States are the most productive, well, I challenge you to explain how a rural community that produces food for people to eat is less productive than the Wall Street speculators who crashed the world economy at least two times already with their reckless gambling.


I understand that the EC was a condition at the time of the creation of the Union. At this point which States are likely to want to go off on their own? Certainly not the low population States that tend to be the net beneficiaries of the Union. Texas might - they tend to be the most nationalistic about their State but it wouldn't benefit them to do so, given that they live on the Mexican border. New York could exist on their own. They have enough infrastructure, universities, large corporations and investment that they could separate and economically probably be better off. Most of the rest of the States would fall into second world status if they separated. California, Oregon and Washington would probably join up with Canada rather than go on their own - they are more ideologically aligned.

New York is probably the most parasitic State in the entire union. Without massive and continuous subsidies from the rest of the country, New York's bloated financial sector would have fallen into oblivion long ago. Cities in general are consumerist black holes that depend almost entirely on the productive rural sectors of the economy. That is why the north fought so hard to keep the south from seceding. And it's why urban power centers have always sought to dominate the rural countryside.

[Ethereal]

Even having your vote diminished because of where you live is a form of taxation without adequate representation, where the representative is the citizen who becomes a second or third class citizen in a Federal election.

It's not because of the electoral college. It's because of a law passed in 1911. If you're arguing that the law should be changed, then I totally agree with you.

[Captdon]

I think it's pretty obnoxious that one's opinion regarding the national leader is diminished because one lives in the most highly taxed and economically productive parts of America. Perhaps that's why the electoral colleges are empowered to ignore the votes of the people and usurp that right in an elitist system that presumes that others know better than the electorate. Obviously, that option is rarely exercised because of the potential backlash, but the EC is nevertheless being used to manipulate elections, along with outrageously obvious gerrymandering.

I understand that the EC was a condition at the time of the creation of the Union. At this point which States are likely to want to go off on their own? Certainly not the low population States that tend to be the net beneficiaries of the Union. Texas might - they tend to be the most nationalistic about their State but it wouldn't benefit them to do so, given that they live on the Mexican border. New York could exist on their own. They have enough infrastructure, universities, large corporations and investment that they could separate and economically probably be better off. Most of the rest of the States would fall into second world status if they separated. California, Oregon and Washington would probably join up with Canada rather than go on their own - they are more ideologically aligned.

Amend the Constitution.

Move to another country.

Start a revolution.

[texan]

Because the US was never a direct democracy. States are suppose to be sovereign only ceding limited power to the federal government. To eliminate the EC (along with the 17th Amendment) destroys the sovereignty of the states. This would be a radical change to the US.
I swear Peter.... thanks for explaining something the American people should know. If they don’t where have they been. I will add the fathers were smart enough to create balance so everyone stays engaged. Talk about disenfranchising a people. Then creating all kinds of chaos as people either start civil wars or withdraw their states from the country.

We have to deal with this crap every time they lose something. This has become the longest running tantrum in history.

[Dr. Who]

The president isn't a "national leader".

The president is the chief executive of the federal government.

And according to the original intent of the federal constitution, the number of electoral votes a State has is directly proportional to its population. Given this, there is no reason why more populous States should have less than adequate representation in presidential elections.

As for your claim that the most populous States are the most productive, well, I challenge you to explain how a rural community that produces food for people to eat is less productive than the Wall Street speculators who crashed the world economy at least two times already with their reckless gambling.



New York is probably the most parasitic State in the entire union. Without massive and continuous subsidies from the rest of the country, New York's bloated financial sector would have fallen into oblivion long ago. Cities in general are consumerist black holes that depend almost entirely on the productive rural sectors of the economy. That is why the north fought so hard to keep the south from seceding. And it's why urban power centers have always sought to dominate the rural countryside.
That may well be, but NY State is like the US dollar, it has a reputation for industry and investment. It's probably the oldest seat of industry and banking in America. Like it or not, it has more connections in the globalist world than virtually any other State. This isn't a qualitative assessment. It's a rational assessment. NYC is the financial center of America - actually the Americas and it occupies a much more significant financial position than any other city in the world. We aren't talking about the world changing. Until it does, New York State would survive because of New York City and its central position in capital markets. It would learn to live without direct subsidies to its financial sector by simply charging more to play.

[Dr. Who]

It's not because of the electoral college. It's because of a law passed in 1911. If you're arguing that the law should be changed, then I totally agree with you.
Both are odious concepts. I am a direct democracy advocate. If you choose to live in low population state, I don't understand why you would expect that the table should be tilted to favor your opinion at the expense of other citizens especially when you are probably contributing less to the common wealth than those who are living on top of each other and inhaling exhaust fumes in order to work and live up to the expectations of the American culture, however shallow and materialistic - and before you talk about farming, the family farm is almost extinct in America. They are primarily industrial farms owned by corporations employing workers for low wages in jobs that they haven't automated.

[Dr. Who]

Amend the Constitution.

Move to another country.

Start a revolution.
This is just discussion Capton. Nothing said here will change anything other than offering an exchange of opinions and an opportunity to challenge beliefs.

[Green Arrow]

Okay, well the reason for that is because in 1911, the Congress passed a bill capping the amount of representatives at 435. It has nothing to do with the electoral college per se.
Ethereal, I would be interested in seeing a forecast model on how things would look if that cap was removed. If it's too much of an undertaking (for example, me trying to create a forecast model on how my compromise EC proposal would have impacted the 2016 election - two hours just to get to Hawai'i on the ACTUAL results, not even starting on the forecast model), don't worry about it. It's not a big deal, I'm just interested in the idea of removing the cap and would be curious to see how that would look.

[Green Arrow]

Both are odious concepts. I am a direct democracy advocate. If you choose to live in low population state, I don't understand why you would expect that the table should be tilted to favor your opinion at the expense of other citizens especially when you are probably contributing less to the common wealth than those who are living on top of each other and inhaling exhaust fumes in order to work and live up to the expectations of the American culture, however shallow and materialistic - and before you talk about farming, the family farm is almost extinct in America. They are primarily industrial farms owned by corporations employing workers for low wages in jobs that they haven't automated.

I also find the concept of states having opinions and needing representation as a unit to be largely outdated and no longer culturally or politically relevant, and I don't see how trying to go back 150 years to a time when it mattered ever having the desired results.

[Dr. Who]

I also find the concept of states having opinions and needing representation as a unit to be largely outdated and no longer culturally or politically relevant, and I don't see how trying to go back 150 years to a time when it mattered ever having the desired results.
Call me a cynic but I really don't believe that States are truly cultural or ideological enclaves anymore. If they were, gerrymandering would never have developed.

[Green Arrow]

Call me a cynic but I really don't believe that States are truly cultural or ideological enclaves anymore. If they were, gerrymandering would never have developed.

There are some notable exceptions - California and Texas in particular are pretty solidly culturally and ideologically homogeneous for the most part.

[Dr. Who]

There are some notable exceptions - California and Texas in particular are pretty solidly culturally and ideologically homogeneous for the most part.
True, to an extent. Northern California is more rural and right leaning and the major cities in Texas tend to lean left and are growing faster than the rest of the State. I think that the bottom line is that the great cultural and ideological divide is between urban dwellers and rural dwellers - not States. The former are growing and the latter are shrinking, so for those betting on the direction of America, look to the cities. Gerrymandering on the other hand, manipulates electoral districts based on ideology and skews results. It should be illegal - it is in many places in the world that are known for electoral ethics. Having a district that resembles a geological map of aquifers is a sure sign of gerrymandering.

[Green Arrow]

True, to an extent. Northern California is more rural and right leaning and the major cities in Texas tend to lean left and are growing faster than the rest of the State. I think that the bottom line is that the great cultural and ideological divide is between urban dwellers and rural dwellers - not States. The former are growing and the latter are shrinking, so for those betting on the direction of America, look to the cities. Gerrymandering on the other hand, manipulates electoral districts based on ideology and skews results. It should be illegal - it is in many places in the world that are known for electoral ethics. Having a district that resembles a geological map of aquifers is a sure sign of gerrymandering.

Agreed on all counts.

[jimmyz]

Bring on your 2/3s... Neva!

[Peter1469]

I also find the concept of states having opinions and needing representation as a unit to be largely outdated and no longer culturally or politically relevant, and I don't see how trying to go back 150 years to a time when it mattered ever having the desired results.
It is not an outdated concept. The concepts of federalism are just as powerful today as it was at our Founding.

Eliminating federalism in the US would be a radical change and essentially be a very different nation. A United States? No Longer.

[Common]

Every time the democrats lose an election electorally they want to get rid of the electoral college, so california will have more power over smaller states.

[Admiral Ackbar]

Every time the democrats lose an election electorally they want to get rid of the electoral college, so california will have more power over smaller states.

Because that is where all the smart people live. The rubes need guidance

[Green Arrow]

Every time the democrats lose an election electorally they want to get rid of the electoral college, so california will have more power over smaller states.

California has 55 EC votes, Wyoming has 3. Already has more.

[Common]

Because that is where all the smart people live. The rubes need guidance
Of course, if there is an antichrist, he/she was born in california

[Max Rockatansky]

Of course, if there is an antichrist, he/she was born in california
....and living in Malibu. :)

[Captdon]

That may well be, but NY State is like the US dollar, it has a reputation for industry and investment. It's probably the oldest seat of industry and banking in America. Like it or not, it has more connections in the globalist world than virtually any other State. This isn't a qualitative assessment. It's a rational assessment. NYC is the financial center of America - actually the Americas and it occupies a much more significant financial position than any other city in the world. We aren't talking about the world changing. Until it does, New York State would survive because of New York City and its central position in capital markets. It would learn to live without direct subsidies to its financial sector by simply charging more to play.

They don't grow their own food. They don't supply their own water. They don't, and can't, build their own cars. etc.They are no better than anyone else. My state could be more self-sufficient than NY.

[Captdon]

This is just discussion Capton. Nothing said here will change anything other than offering an exchange of opinions and an opportunity to challenge beliefs.

And I did just that.

[Captdon]

@Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=870), I would be interested in seeing a forecast model on how things would look if that cap was removed. If it's too much of an undertaking (for example, me trying to create a forecast model on how my compromise EC proposal would have impacted the 2016 election - two hours just to get to Hawai'i on the ACTUAL results, not even starting on the forecast model), don't worry about it. It's not a big deal, I'm just interested in the idea of removing the cap and would be curious to see how that would look.

I'll give you one fact. We would have 1522 members in the House of Representatives. Imagine the government then.

[Captdon]

I also find the concept of states having opinions and needing representation as a unit to be largely outdated and no longer culturally or politically relevant, and I don't see how trying to go back 150 years to a time when it mattered ever having the desired results.

Well, that's one opinion. Mine is the opposite. The states should never have given up their power.

[Captdon]

Call me a cynic but I really don't believe that States are truly cultural or ideological enclaves anymore. If they were, gerrymandering would never have developed.

That started in 1812 so it didn't take long and isn't anything new.It started when the states were enclaves.

[Captdon]

There are some notable exceptions - California and Texas in particular are pretty solidly culturally and ideologically homogeneous for the most part.

So is SC, Wyoming, Montana, Georgia ...

[Captdon]

Every time the democrats lose an election electorally they want to get rid of the electoral college, so california will have more power over smaller states.

Since it is the President of the United States. Each state should get one vote. A state is a state.

[DGUtley]

I also find the concept of states having opinions and needing representation as a unit to be largely outdated and no longer culturally or politically relevant, and I don't see how trying to go back 150 years to a time when it mattered ever having the desired results.

Call me a cynic but I really don't believe that States are truly cultural or ideological enclaves anymore. If they were, gerrymandering would never have developed.
The original "deal" or "compact" -- to get these sovereign states to give up some of their freedoms and rights (and to get the new states to sign on) -- was, inter alia, to limit the power of the federal government and to limit the power of the larger states to lord over the smaller ones. That was the deal. The federal government is a creation of the states, not vice versa. You want to change the deal - change the balance of big state over small state - I think you have to give everybody the opportunity to opt out.

[Dr. Who]

They don't grow their own food. They don't supply their own water. They don't, and can't, build their own cars. etc.They are no better than anyone else. My state could be more self-sufficient than NY.
New York would just buy what they don't produce for themselves - it's what they do now. We are not talking about the collapse of the first world, we are talking about states potentially carving themselves off from the herd. Those states that reap the greatest benefit from the EC are, for the most part, the least likely to benefit economically from independence, should that be a requirement. Let's not forget that America grew from the Northeast and the Northeast is still the financial center of America. There are a number of countries in the world that are economic powerhouses that have very little in the way of natural resources or land.

[Dr. Who]

That started in 1812 so it didn't take long and isn't anything new.It started when the states were enclaves.
It's crooked and crime is as old as humanity.

[Max Rockatansky]

New York would just buy what they don't produce for themselves - it's what they do now. We are not talking about the collapse of the first world, we are talking about states potentially carving themselves off from the herd. Those states that reap the greatest benefit from the EC are, for the most part, the least likely to benefit economically from independence, should that be a requirement. Let's not forget that America grew from the Northeast and the Northeast is still the financial center of America. There are a number of countries in the world that are economic powerhouses that have very little in the way of natural resources or land.In a modern, functioning world, yes. If the economy collapsed, for whatever reason, then what? Those with the guns will shoot those who don't have guns.

[Hoosier8]

California has 55 EC votes, Wyoming has 3. Already has more.
It's called minority protection. Guess protecting minorities is only favorable if they vote democrat.

[Dr. Who]

Since it is the President of the United States. Each state should get one vote. A state is a state.
Then the people of each State should only pay a prorated share of the federal tax regardless of population. If the federal tax bill is X divided by 50, then each state should pay its 1/50th share regardless of their population.

[Captdon]

New York would just buy what they don't produce for themselves - it's what they do now. We are not talking about the collapse of the first world, we are talking about states potentially carving themselves off from the herd. Those states that reap the greatest benefit from the EC are, for the most part, the least likely to benefit economically from independence, should that be a requirement. Let's not forget that America grew from the Northeast and the Northeast is still the financial center of America. There are a number of countries in the world that are economic powerhouses that have very little in the way of natural resources or land.

SC grows its own food. We have a steel mill. We have an aluminum plant. We have a Boeing plant. We have a port. We will have the money you pay us for what you don't have. We don't need NY. We are not alone.

[Dr. Who]

In a modern, functioning world, yes. If the economy collapsed, for whatever reason, then what? Those with the guns will shoot those who don't have guns.
Economic collapse is an entirely different discussion. Then the resource-rich would rule and the resource-poor would starve.

[Dr. Who]

The original "deal" or "compact" -- to get these sovereign states to give up some of their freedoms and rights (and to get the new states to sign on) -- was, inter alia, to limit the power of the federal government and to limit the power of the larger states to lord over the smaller ones. That was the deal. The federal government is a creation of the states, not vice versa. You want to change the deal - change the balance of big state over small state - I think you have to give everybody the opportunity to opt out.
The question is, what would opt-out mean? Opting out of the EC or opting out of America? I think that the EC can only work with 100% participation, otherwise tallying the votes would be apples and oranges. Opting out would mean opting out of America. Full stop.

[Max Rockatansky]

Economic collapse is an entirely different discussion. Then the resource-rich would rule and the resource-poor would starve.
Saying "resource-rich" covers a lot of territory. In a survival situation that's just water and 1200-1800 calories per day. However, in collapse situation, such as happening in Venezuela at the moment, there's the initial survival of violence then pure resource access.

[Green Arrow]

The original "deal" or "compact" -- to get these sovereign states to give up some of their freedoms and rights (and to get the new states to sign on) -- was, inter alia, to limit the power of the federal government and to limit the power of the larger states to lord over the smaller ones. That was the deal. The federal government is a creation of the states, not vice versa. You want to change the deal - change the balance of big state over small state - I think you have to give everybody the opportunity to opt out.
I’m fine with that. I’ve consistently supported separatist movements for years on this forum.

[Green Arrow]

It's called minority protection. Guess protecting minorities is only favorable if they vote democrat.

Not at all relevant to my position. Bernie Sanders is my favorite politician, he could win the presidency in 2020 and the next day I’d still be talking about getting rid of the EC. Who wins or loses has nothing to do with the validity of the system itself.

[Dr. Who]

SC grows its own food. We have a steel mill. We have an aluminum plant. We have a Boeing plant. We have a port. We will have the money you pay us for what you don't have. We don't need NY. We are not alone.
And for NY it would be, who cares? They make more money from nonmanufacturing and non-resources than most states can ever dream of making from the sweat and labor of mining and manufacturing. It's the financial capital of America. They make far more money from emotions and risk-taking. They have the biggest casino on the planet - the NY Stock Exchange. Every stock in the world worth trading is traded on the NY stock exchange. They traded an average of US$169 billion per day as of 2013. California actually generates more money than any state in the Union, but NY State is better poised to be independent.

[Dr. Who]

Saying "resource-rich" covers a lot of territory. In a survival situation that's just water and 1200-1800 calories per day. However, in collapse situation, such as happening in Venezuela at the moment, there's the initial survival of violence then pure resource access.
It's obviously not without complications. Natural resource-rich nations that are politically stable would have the advantage.

[DGUtley]

The question is, what would opt-out mean? Opting out of the EC or opting out of America? I think that the EC can only work with 100% participation, otherwise tallying the votes would be apples and oranges. Opting out would mean opting out of America. Full stop.

Leave the country. They gave up sovereignty and rights based on the protection from the big urban states the EC provided. You want to change it. Some may want their sovereignty back if the alternative is those big urban states are going to run roughshod over them. They may leave because of the broken contract.

[Dr. Who]

Leave the country. They gave up sovereignty and rights based on the protection from the big urban states the EC provided. You want to change it. Some may want their sovereignty back if the alternative is those big urban states are going to run roughshod over them. They may leave because of the broken contract.
Eventually this will come to a head and States will have to decide whether they would actually benefit from sovereignty in today's world or whether that train left the station two centuries ago.

[DGUtley]

Eventually this will come to a head and States will have to decide whether they would actually benefit from sovereignty in today's world or whether that train left the station two centuries ago.

Sovereignty = Freedom. It will never go out of style.

[Hoosier8]

Not at all relevant to my position. Bernie Sanders is my favorite politician, he could win the presidency in 2020 and the next day I’d still be talking about getting rid of the EC. Who wins or loses has nothing to do with the validity of the system itself.

Well, ignorance is an excuse I suppose.

[Ethereal]

@Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=870), I would be interested in seeing a forecast model on how things would look if that cap was removed. If it's too much of an undertaking (for example, me trying to create a forecast model on how my compromise EC proposal would have impacted the 2016 election - two hours just to get to Hawai'i on the ACTUAL results, not even starting on the forecast model), don't worry about it. It's not a big deal, I'm just interested in the idea of removing the cap and would be curious to see how that would look.
It's hard to answer because it would depend on the ratio of representatives to population. The constitution stipulates that there can be no more than 1 representative for every 30,000 people. The first apportionment act signed into law by Washington had the ratio at 1 representative for every 33,000 people. If that same ratio were in effect today, that would mean California would go from having 53 representatives to having 1,198. And Texas would go from having 36 representatives to having 857. As you can see, the founders' idea of what constituted adequate representation differed radically from subsequent generations.

[Dr. Who]

Sovereignty = Freedom. It will never go out of style.

Style, is an expensive indulgence. Direct democracy among free nations is rule, rather than the exception. This idea that the founding fathers were the smartest people that ever lived or will ever live is more than a little fanatical.

[Ethereal]

Both are odious concepts. I am a direct democracy advocate.

Direct democracy cannot happen at the scale of a large federation like the USA. It is literally impossible.


If you choose to live in low population state, I don't understand why you would expect that the table should be tilted to favor your opinion at the expense of other citizens especially when you are probably contributing less to the common wealth than those who are living on top of each other and inhaling exhaust fumes in order to work and live up to the expectations of the American culture, however shallow and materialistic - and before you talk about farming, the family farm is almost extinct in America. They are primarily industrial farms owned by corporations employing workers for low wages in jobs that they haven't automated.

Again, there is nothing about the electoral college per se that tilts anything in the favor of smaller States.

And why do you suppose smaller farms are less prevalent than they were in the past? Obviously, technology and economies of scale are part of the reason. But perhaps more important is the gigantism of the nationalist state that displaces and supplants small scale organization and association. Put simply, BIG government is bad for SMALL institutions like family-owned farms, and families in general.

[Max Rockatansky]

It's obviously not without complications. Natural resource-rich nations that are politically stable would have the advantage.
Disagreed. Look at Russia, Afghanistan and Venezuela. Some are more stable than the others. All are rich in natural resources. The biggest problem for all? Exploiting those resources. It doesn't matter if you are sitting on a trillion tons of titanium, oil, diamonds or anything else if you can't exploit that resource. Often Third World nations need to import the tech and investment companies to exploit their resources. This is why China is so heavily involved in Africa.

[Ethereal]

That may well be, but NY State is like the US dollar, it has a reputation for industry and investment. It's probably the oldest seat of industry and banking in America. Like it or not, it has more connections in the globalist world than virtually any other State. This isn't a qualitative assessment. It's a rational assessment. NYC is the financial center of America - actually the Americas and it occupies a much more significant financial position than any other city in the world. We aren't talking about the world changing. Until it does, New York State would survive because of New York City and its central position in capital markets. It would learn to live without direct subsidies to its financial sector by simply charging more to play.
Cities could not even exist without farmers.

But farmers could easily exist without cities.

And that is why cities have ALWAYS attempted to exert political control over the rural countryside.

[Ethereal]

I also find the concept of states having opinions and needing representation as a unit to be largely outdated and no longer culturally or politically relevant...

Why!?


...and I don't see how trying to go back 150 years to a time when it mattered ever having the desired results.

Desired results for whom?

[Ethereal]

Call me a cynic but I really don't believe that States are truly cultural or ideological enclaves anymore. If they were, gerrymandering would never have developed.
I don't see how cynicism enters into it one way or the other.

And if States are not cultural or ideological enclaves anymore, then why do so many Americans still identify with State-based institutions and laws?

For example, college sports in the USA is based almost entirely on the States in which those teams are located. And professional sports in the USA is based almost entirely on the cities in which those teams are located. Culturally speaking, that is about as relevant as it gets in the USA.

And ideologically speaking, there is a great deal of diversity and distinctiveness among the States that reflect a unique State-based culture. Probably the most compelling example of this is the legalization of cannabis by various State governments in direct defiance of federal prohibition. If you visit Colorado, for example, you will experience a political environment that is significantly different than the political environment in a State like Indiana.

I simply cannot believe that some people are so keen to abolish the electoral college, that they would take it so far as to deny the very identity of our States and localities.

I absolutely do not want to be one faceless individual among a giant, nebulous mass. I belong to a real community that is based on a local identity. The electoral college serves to protect and preserve that, not only for me, but for everyone.

[Ethereal]

There are some notable exceptions - California and Texas in particular are pretty solidly culturally and ideologically homogeneous for the most part.
Which State isn't culturally and ideologically unique in some way?

Is Baton Rouge not a distinct place with a distinct culture and identity?

Do you want Baton Rouge's local character to be swallowed up by some nationalist blob?

[Dr. Who]

Direct democracy cannot happen at the scale of a large federation like the USA. It is literally impossible.



Again, there is nothing about the electoral college per se that tilts anything in the favor of smaller States.

And why do you suppose smaller farms are less prevalent than they were in the past? Obviously, technology and economies of scale are part of the reason. But perhaps more important is the gigantism of the nationalist state that displaces and supplants small scale organization and association. Put simply, BIG government is bad for SMALL institutions like family-owned farms, and families in general.
I'm not arguing what should be, but what is. The family farm, except for organic entries to the market is becoming extinct. The world of the framers no longer exists.

Yes, the electoral college by definition, tilts in favor of smaller rural states i.e. the least populous, and for the most part the least participatory in economic growth or contributions to the common wealth. In fact, they tend to be the net benefactors of federal transfers. IOW, they don't tend to even support themselves but rely on the wealth of the big states with the big populations to help them make ends meet.

[Ethereal]

New York would just buy what they don't produce for themselves - it's what they do now. We are not talking about the collapse of the first world, we are talking about states potentially carving themselves off from the herd. Those states that reap the greatest benefit from the EC are, for the most part, the least likely to benefit economically from independence, should that be a requirement. Let's not forget that America grew from the Northeast and the Northeast is still the financial center of America. There are a number of countries in the world that are economic powerhouses that have very little in the way of natural resources or land.
If that is really the case, then why did the urban north fight so hard to keep the rural south from seceding?

[Ethereal]

The question is, what would opt-out mean? Opting out of the EC or opting out of America? I think that the EC can only work with 100% participation, otherwise tallying the votes would be apples and oranges. Opting out would mean opting out of America. Full stop.

Opting out of the union is not opting out of America.

America existed before the union.

[Ethereal]

And for NY it would be, who cares? They make more money from nonmanufacturing and non-resources than most states can ever dream of making from the sweat and labor of mining and manufacturing. It's the financial capital of America. They make far more money from emotions and risk-taking. They have the biggest casino on the planet - the NY Stock Exchange. Every stock in the world worth trading is traded on the NY stock exchange. They traded an average of US$169 billion per day as of 2013. California actually generates more money than any state in the Union, but NY State is better poised to be independent.

ANY State in the USA could exist as an independent entity. That is how they started off in the first place.

If Lichtenstein can be its own country, then there is no reason why ANY US State could not do the same.

[Ethereal]

Eventually this will come to a head and States will have to decide whether they would actually benefit from sovereignty in today's world or whether that train left the station two centuries ago.

Canada seems to benefit from its sovereignty. As does every other country in the world. Why would it be any different for a US State?

[Dr. Who]

I don't see how cynicism enters into it one way or the other.

And if States are not cultural or ideological enclaves anymore, then why do so many Americans still identify with State-based institutions and laws?

For example, college sports in the USA is based almost entirely on the States in which those teams are located. And professional sports in the USA is based almost entirely on the cities in which those teams are located. Culturally speaking, that is about as relevant as it gets in the USA.

And ideologically speaking, there is a great deal of diversity and distinctiveness among the States that reflect a unique State-based culture. Probably the most compelling example of this is the legalization of cannabis by various State governments in direct defiance of federal prohibition. If you visit Colorado, for example, you will experience a political environment that is significantly different than the political environment in a State like Indiana.

I simply cannot believe that some people are so keen to abolish the electoral college, that they would take it so far as to deny the very identity of our States and localities.

I absolutely do not want to be one faceless individual among a giant, nebulous mass. I belong to a real community that is based on a local identity. The electoral college serves to protect and preserve that, not only for me, but for everyone.

North America is no one's homeland unless you are an aboriginal. It is politically and culturally unlike the Old World and the population is mobile. It moves in accordance to the work. It is no longer sentimental except in the rural parts of America. Local identities are something that people can no longer afford but more likely to be found in areas of poverty because there is no demand for the real estate.

That giant nebulous mass is the future of the world because our economic system demands it.

[Dr. Who]

Disagreed. Look at Russia, Afghanistan and Venezuela. Some are more stable than the others. All are rich in natural resources. The biggest problem for all? Exploiting those resources. It doesn't matter if you are sitting on a trillion tons of titanium, oil, diamonds or anything else if you can't exploit that resource. Often Third World nations need to import the tech and investment companies to exploit their resources. This is why China is so heavily involved in Africa.
Afghanistan and Venusuala are the antonyms of political stability. Canada, on the other hand, is sitting on massive natural resources and it is politically stable. It also has an educated population and the ability to exploit its resources. America hasn't quite as many natural resources relative to its population, but it can certainly take care of itself if it all hits the fan. People will learn about need vs want.

[Mister D]

As you can see, Dr Who has a profound fear and loathing of human difference. She finds liberty in the rootless mass.

[Dr. Who]

Opting out of the union is not opting out of America.

America existed before the union.
Opting out of the US of A, to be more specific.

[Dr. Who]

As you can see, Dr Who has a profound fear and loathing of human difference. She finds liberty in the rootless mass.
It's not a fear and loathing but a lack of cognitive dissonance. People no longer remain where they were born - they can no longer afford to. They go where they can get work.

[Mister D]

It's not a fear and loathing but a lack of cognitive dissonance. People no longer remain where they were born - they can no longer afford to. They go where they can get work.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

This is the world you desire, Dr Who. That you make no attempt to square this with your contempt for corporate power and market society is the only cognitive dissonance on display here.

[Dr. Who]

Cities could not even exist without farmers.

But farmers could easily exist without cities.

And that is why cities have ALWAYS attempted to exert political control over the rural countryside.
If you have the money, you can import food from anywhere on the planet. Absent an economic collapse, New York would be just fine. Without federal taxes, even its homeless would be taken care of.

[Ethereal]

North America is no one's homeland unless you are an aboriginal. It is politically and culturally unlike the Old World and the population is mobile.

Populations have always been mobile. Even natives moved around from place to place. So I have no idea what the basis for this assertion is.


It moves in accordance to the work.

Has there ever been a time in human history when people did not move around in accordance with work requirements? And do you think local economies no longer exist?


It is no longer sentimental except in the rural parts of America.

Sentimental in regards to what? You don't think people living in suburban or urban areas have sentiments?


Local identities are something that people can no longer afford...

America's sports culture is based almost entirely on local identities, and is backed up by gigantic amounts of money. And that's just the most obvious example I can think of. There are many others.


...but more likely to be found in areas of poverty because there is no demand for the real estate.

I grew up in an affluent suburb. We had a local identity.


That giant nebulous mass is the future of the world because our economic system demands it.

Millions of people all over the western world are already revolting against that nightmare scenario. And their resolve will only grow with time.

[Ethereal]

Afghanistan and Venusuala are the antonyms of political stability. Canada, on the other hand, is sitting on massive natural resources and it is politically stable. It also has an educated population and the ability to exploit its resources. America hasn't quite as many natural resources relative to its population, but it can certainly take care of itself if it all hits the fan. People will learn about need vs want.

Canada also happens to be sovereign. Are you in a rush to give it up?

[Ethereal]

Opting out of the US of A, to be more specific.
United States of America - united = States of America => Still America.

[Dr. Who]

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

This is the world you desire, Dr Who. That you make no attempt to square this with your contempt for corporate power and market society is the only cognitive dissonance on display here.

My contempt for both has nothing to do with the reality of States leaving the Union. I'm not a one trick pony. If the least populous States leave the Union, they will be economically poorer because they are, for the most part, the receivers of the national munificence.

[Dr. Who]

Canada also happens to be sovereign. Are you in a rush to give it up?
Why would Canada give up its sovereignty because there is an issue with the electoral colleges?

[Mister D]

Populations have always been mobile. Even natives moved around from place to place. So I have no idea what the basis for this assertion is.



Has there ever been a time in human history when people did not move around in accordance with work requirements? And do you think local economies no longer exist?



Sentimental in regards to what? You don't think people living in suburban or urban areas have sentiments?



America's sports culture is based almost entirely on local identities, and is backed up by gigantic amounts of money. And that's just the most obvious example I can think of. There are many others.



I grew up in an affluent suburb. We had a local identity.



Millions of people all over the western world are already revolting against that nightmare scenario. And their resolve will only grow with time.

That's a good point, Who, and I've made many times. Not many people want to live this way. When you argue necessity you aren't even fooling yourself. This is the kind of world you desire. A world where no place is home and humanity is reduced to a gray, consumerist mass.

[Ethereal]

It's not a fear and loathing but a lack of cognitive dissonance. People no longer remain where they were born - they can no longer afford to. They go where they can get work.
SOME people no longer remain where they were born. SOME people do. The ones who do, belong to a community that has a local identity and a local economy. Even SOME people who move away from their communities still maintain a sense of their local identity. That is why, for example, you can find a Green Bay Packers bar in the city of Chicago. Because SOME of the people who used to live in Wisconsin still identify strongly with that State and its local sports culture.

[Mister D]

My contempt for both has nothing to do with the reality of States leaving the Union. I'm not a one trick pony. If the least populous States leave the Union, they will be economically poorer because they are, for the most part, the receivers of the national munificence.

Your supposed contempt for both is invariably overcome by your fear of human difference and autonomy.

[Ethereal]

If you have the money, you can import food from anywhere on the planet. Absent an economic collapse, New York would be just fine. Without federal taxes, even its homeless would be taken care of.

Assuming the money is actually worth something.

[Ethereal]

Why would Canada give up its sovereignty because there is an issue with the electoral colleges?

For the same reason the States would give up their sovereignty, I suppose.

[Dr. Who]

ANY State in the USA could exist as an independent entity. That is how they started off in the first place.

If Lichtenstein can be its own country, then there is no reason why ANY US State could not do the same.

Of course, but Lichtenstein has been independent for a very long time. Many States are insufficiently diversified to be successfully independent.

[Dr. Who]

Populations have always been mobile. Even natives moved around from place to place. So I have no idea what the basis for this assertion is.



Has there ever been a time in human history when people did not move around in accordance with work requirements? And do you think local economies no longer exist?



Sentimental in regards to what? You don't think people living in suburban or urban areas have sentiments?



America's sports culture is based almost entirely on local identities, and is backed up by gigantic amounts of money. And that's just the most obvious example I can think of. There are many others.



I grew up in an affluent suburb. We had a local identity.



Millions of people all over the western world are already revolting against that nightmare scenario. And their resolve will only grow with time.
I don't disagree that people are revolting against this nightmare scenario, but those who are running the economic system are creating the rules, not me. Forgive me if I don't think that sports cultures are actual cultures. There are millions of people who view sports as mere entertainment for the masses. So did the Romans. They don't tend to bring out the best in people because they are make believe wars.

[Ethereal]

Of course, but Lichtenstein has been independent for a very long time. Many States are insufficiently diversified to be successfully independent.
Which States do you think are "insufficiently diversified"?

[Mister D]

I don't disagree that people are revolting against this nightmare scenario, but those who are running the economic system are creating the rules, not me. Forgive me if I don't think that sports cultures are actual cultures. There are millions of people who view sports as mere entertainment for the masses. So did the Romans. They don't tend to bring out the best in people because they are make believe wars.

Now some honesty is slipping through. In your view, no national, cultural or religious identity brings out the best in people.

[Ethereal]

I don't disagree that people are revolting against this nightmare scenario, but those who are running the economic system are creating the rules, not me. Forgive me if I don't think that sports cultures are actual cultures. There are millions of people who view sports as mere entertainment for the masses. So did the Romans. They don't tend to bring out the best in people because they are make believe wars.

Incidentally, the ones who are running the economic system tend to have views on State and local sovereignty that are similar to yours.

As for your comments about sports culture, I find them incredibly insulting.

[The Xl]

As long as our Presidents do the bidding of those who pay for their campaigns, it doesn't really matter what system we use, be it the electoral college or the popular vote.

[Dr. Who]

For the same reason the States would give up their sovereignty, I suppose.
No. Canada is in many ways fundamentally different than the US. It hasn't got a 300-year-old Constitution or a Constitutional requirement that the central government is restricted to a very finite number of areas of influence or control. It also doesn't have a built-in suspicion of government and a requirement to occasionally replenish the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Moreover, Canada has a direct democracy, which works for Canadians and there is therefore far less political polarization. IOW Canadian politics are pretty uneventful as compared to America.

[Dr. Who]

Which States do you think are "insufficiently diversified"?

First, those whose primary source of income is crops for animal feed and secondly those whose primary source of income is agriculture in general. They are protected by a central government but if you look around the world at primarily agricultural nations, they tend to comprise the third world.

[Dr. Who]

Incidentally, the ones who are running the economic system tend to have views on State and local sovereignty that are similar to yours.

As for your comments about sports culture, I find them incredibly insulting.
I'm sorry that you find my comments about sports insulting. I wasn't raised caring about sports and I don't see their value other than as entertainment for some people. I don't find them entertaining in the least. However, I do know that the Romans used them to entertain the masses and that was the beginning of major sports as entertainment. You will have to excuse me because I don't revere any form of entertainment. I obviously like some forms but not enough to consider them truly cultural in today's world.

[Peter1469]

Style, is an expensive indulgence. Direct democracy among free nations is rule, rather than the exception. This idea that the founding fathers were the smartest people that ever lived or will ever live is more than a little fanatical.

Direct democracy in a large nation is unworkable and is a horrible idea. Our citizens should be working productive jobs, not becoming experts on each piece of legislation so they can cast an informed vote.

A tyranny would be preferable to a direct democracy (outside of a local and homogeneous group).

[Peter1469]

North America is no one's homeland unless you are an aboriginal. It is politically and culturally unlike the Old World and the population is mobile. It moves in accordance to the work. It is no longer sentimental except in the rural parts of America. Local identities are something that people can no longer afford but more likely to be found in areas of poverty because there is no demand for the real estate.

That giant nebulous mass is the future of the world because our economic system demands it.
Bolded: Incorrect. The land that encompasses the US is ours by right of conquest. We displaced and subjugated the natives.

To anyone who disagrees: Molon Labe (come take).

[Peter1469]

If you have the money, you can import food from anywhere on the planet. Absent an economic collapse, New York would be just fine. Without federal taxes, even its homeless would be taken care of.

It may not if too many taxpayers leave over high taxes.

[Peter1469]

I don't disagree that people are revolting against this nightmare scenario, but those who are running the economic system are creating the rules, not me. Forgive me if I don't think that sports cultures are actual cultures. There are millions of people who view sports as mere entertainment for the masses. So did the Romans. They don't tend to bring out the best in people because they are make believe wars.
Sports in the modern era are hardly make believe wars. I have participated in both. Sports are tightly controlled and playing by the rules are important. When you fight a war the idea is to kill the enemy and to never engage in a fair fight if it can be avoided. KTF. (Kill them first).

Sports are games.

[Max Rockatansky]

Afghanistan and Venusuala are the antonyms of political stability. Canada, on the other hand, is sitting on massive natural resources and it is politically stable. It also has an educated population and the ability to exploit its resources. America hasn't quite as many natural resources relative to its population, but it can certainly take care of itself if it all hits the fan. People will learn about need vs want.
Canada is a good example: A capitalist federal constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system. Yes, they lean toward socialism but unlike socialist countries, they don't national all assets. Their biggest problem isn't natural resources, but accessing those resources. No, they can't do it on their own for two reasons:

1) Lack of people. They are inviting immigrants like the US did in the 1800s. They have less people than California in a country the size of the continental USA. Their population is about the same as the US's was in 1865 and a tenth of today's population.

2) Lack of technology. Canada has a lot of great industries, but with such a low population, they just can't do everything so they import it. Mostly from their neighbor to the south. https://en.portal.santandertrade.com/establish-overseas/canada/foreign-investment

[DGUtley]

Style, is an expensive indulgence. Direct democracy among free nations is rule, rather than the exception. This idea that the founding fathers were the smartest people that ever lived or will ever live is more than a little fanatical.

No one is suggesting that the founding fathers were the smartest people that ever lived or that will ever live. However, we cobbled together 13 independent sovereign states to form a specific union, under a contract that provided for certain rights, limitations and guarantees. One of them, which was a HUGE concern was that the big states would have too much influence, resulted in the EC. This was a bargained-for agreement. Had we not cut that deal, over the past 243 years the countries of Ohio, PA, Virginia etc would've found ways to deal with each via trade, collective defense etc. That wasn't necessary b/c they chose to form a republic for the common defense etc. Because you're unhappy with the results of the election (Not you specifically, you generally) you want to change the agreement - to a point where my little state will now be lorded over by your big state b/c you have so many big state people. That hurts my freedom of so many things. Yes, it would be painful and sad to separate but we would recover after our Ohexit and forge trade treaties, etc with the other sovereign states and perhaps the new United States of America. I suspect that we won't be alone. Unwinding it all will be painful and difficult but it can all be accomplished. You can go popular vote all of your big urban states and we'll EC all of the red states, maybe even form a new union. You'll have 10 or 12 states and we'll have the rest.

[Admiral Ackbar]

Don't look at Canada as the huge country it appears as on the map.

The vast majority of the that physical territory is the Canadian Shield. Very poor soils, rough climate that does not allow for large population centers and no inland waterways for easy transport

Canada is essential a 100 -150 mile strip of land along the border with the US. Given that the population is appropriate and fits.

[Ethereal]

I'm sorry that you find my comments about sports insulting. I wasn't raised caring about sports and I don't see their value other than as entertainment for some people. I don't find them entertaining in the least. However, I do know that the Romans used them to entertain the masses and that was the beginning of major sports as entertainment. You will have to excuse me because I don't revere any form of entertainment. I obviously like some forms but not enough to consider them truly cultural in today's world.

Of course I find them insulting. Sports have always been a big part of my life. The idea that they're only good for entertainment and nothing else shows a lack of understanding. Sports can be entertaining, but they can also teach people about teamwork, hard work, and physical fitness, among other things. Sports were the biggest reason why I was so prepared for the military. Those who lacked previous experience in sports culture tended to be less fit and less psychologically capable, based on my observations. At any rate, just because sports are a form of entertainment does not preclude them from being culture. Dance is a form of entertainment, yet I doubt you would exclude that from the definition of culture.

[Ethereal]

No. Canada is in many ways fundamentally different than the US. It hasn't got a 300-year-old Constitution or a Constitutional requirement that the central government is restricted to a very finite number of areas of influence or control. It also doesn't have a built-in suspicion of government and a requirement to occasionally replenish the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Moreover, Canada has a direct democracy, which works for Canadians and there is therefore far less political polarization. IOW Canadian politics are pretty uneventful as compared to America.
So Canada's sovereignty is still important and relevant, but the sovereignty of the States is not because... ?

[Ethereal]

First, those whose primary source of income is crops for animal feed and secondly those whose primary source of income is agriculture in general. They are protected by a central government but if you look around the world at primarily agricultural nations, they tend to comprise the third world.
Give me an example.

And "protected" is a funny way of describing the relationship between rural communities and central governments. I'd rather characterize it as "extorted" and "oppressed" so that big cities can mindlessly consume resources while producing very little of tangible value. Indeed, central governments and the big cities in which they reside could not exist without agriculture.

[Captdon]

Then the people of each State should only pay a prorated share of the federal tax regardless of population. If the federal tax bill is X divided by 50, then each state should pay its 1/50th share regardless of their population.

Then there would be no liberal programs. There would be no takeover by the federal government. It would be a good thing.

Is this the response you were hoping for?

[Captdon]

And for NY it would be, who cares? They make more money from nonmanufacturing and non-resources than most states can ever dream of making from the sweat and labor of mining and manufacturing. It's the financial capital of America. They make far more money from emotions and risk-taking. They have the biggest casino on the planet - the NY Stock Exchange. Every stock in the world worth trading is traded on the NY stock exchange. They traded an average of US$169 billion per day as of 2013. California actually generates more money than any state in the Union, but NY State is better poised to be independent.

How much do you think the non-NY riff-raff would charge for everything NY can't do? We are better prepared to be independent than NY will ever be. We don't need NY for anything.

[Captdon]

Leave the country. They gave up sovereignty and rights based on the protection from the big urban states the EC provided. You want to change it. Some may want their sovereignty back if the alternative is those big urban states are going to run roughshod over them. They may leave because of the broken contract.

We would leave now given the chance.

[Captdon]

Eventually this will come to a head and States will have to decide whether they would actually benefit from sovereignty in today's world or whether that train left the station two centuries ago.

That's just silly nonsense. Sovereignty isn't going anyplace unless we allow the liberals like you get control.

[Captdon]

Style, is an expensive indulgence. Direct democracy among free nations is rule, rather than the exception. This idea that the founding fathers were the smartest people that ever lived or will ever live is more than a little fanatical.

You really don't know as much as I thought you did. Direct democracy doesn't exist for any except France. Parliamentary government isn't direct democracy. It is party rule.

[Captdon]

I'm not arguing what should be, but what is. The family farm, except for organic entries to the market is becoming extinct. The world of the framers no longer exists.

Yes, the electoral college by definition, tilts in favor of smaller rural states i.e. the least populous, and for the most part the least participatory in economic growth or contributions to the common wealth. In fact, they tend to be the net benefactors of federal transfers. IOW, they don't tend to even support themselves but rely on the wealth of the big states with the big populations to help them make ends meet.

Stop your tax-sucking and we would be just fine. We don't pay for welfare programs. The Feds do. The transfer is from the federal government to the people not to the states. You don't have to even be smart to see that.

[MisterVeritis]

Direct democracy among free nations is rule, rather than the exception.
Which free states nations, in your opinion, have direct democracies?

[Captdon]

North America is no one's homeland unless you are an aboriginal. It is politically and culturally unlike the Old World and the population is mobile. It moves in accordance to the work. It is no longer sentimental except in the rural parts of America. Local identities are something that people can no longer afford but more likely to be found in areas of poverty because there is no demand for the real estate.

That giant nebulous mass is the future of the world because our economic system demands it.

It is my homeland. I was born here. I have lived in 5 states. I still want the United States not the Giant Nebulous Mass of the Earth.


You're getting to be a screwball.

[Captdon]

If you have the money, you can import food from anywhere on the planet. Absent an economic collapse, New York would be just fine. Without federal taxes, even its homeless would be taken care of.

Import food from where? You still need someone to farm. Absent a NY we would do just fine.

[Captdon]

My contempt for both has nothing to do with the reality of States leaving the Union. I'm not a one trick pony. If the least populous States leave the Union, they will be economically poorer because they are, for the most part, the receivers of the national munificence.

The smaller states didn't ask for the feds to give leeches money. We are the least supportive of federal programs. How do you correlate that? The smaller states didn't ask you liberals to stick your nose into how they do anything.

You would be buying cars from SC and Tn. You would be seeing airlines buying planes here and using your airport, or not. You would soon see that importing food from Europe will eat up your savings. We will still eat.

Your argument is as senseless as I've ever heard. NY is just a few rich people supporting leeches. NY isn't very smart, is it?

[Captdon]

My contempt for both has nothing to do with the reality of States leaving the Union. I'm not a one trick pony. If the least populous States leave the Union, they will be economically poorer because they are, for the most part, the receivers of the national munificence.

You certainly are a one trick pony and the trick sucks.

[Captdon]

Assuming the money is actually worth something.

It would be worth less if NY was a separate nation. Who would decide the value> It would be the sellers not the consumer. That would be us deciding what your money is worth.

We here can outlast you.

[Captdon]

No. Canada is in many ways fundamentally different than the US. It hasn't got a 300-year-old Constitution or a Constitutional requirement that the central government is restricted to a very finite number of areas of influence or control. It also doesn't have a built-in suspicion of government and a requirement to occasionally replenish the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Moreover, Canada has a direct democracy, which works for Canadians and there is therefore far less political polarization. IOW Canadian politics are pretty uneventful as compared to America.

Canada is run by whatever party wins the most seat or forms a coalition. How is that direct democracy. That's just party politics.

[Captdon]

First, those whose primary source of income is crops for animal feed and secondly those whose primary source of income is agriculture in general. They are protected by a central government but if you look around the world at primarily agricultural nations, they tend to comprise the third world.

Where do you think NY is going to buy its meat from? You don't have an argument. You have a lots of dots that you can't connect.

[RadioGod]

Of course it matters. It's basic math.

If your vote is counted in a pool of 1,000 voters, then you have a 0.1% impact on the result

If your vote is counted in a pool of 10,000,000 voters, then you have a 0.00001% impact on the result.



It maintains the sovereignty and identity of the States, and the autonomy of localities, which is necessary to the preservation of the federal character of the US.



Again, there is no dichotomy between thinking of oneself as a resident of one's State and an American. Both can be true at the same time. Indeed, being from a particular State and identifying with that State is part of what it means to be an American.



Well, if the shoe fits...

There should be at least 200,000,000 eligible voters in the US. Each vote for President should count individually. The electoral college discounts millions of votes. I see you are a fan of the fuzzy math. Your math is correct, but mis-applied.
The almost 3 million voters who didn't have their votes count in the last election of Trump should not have to pay taxes. They had no voice, hence, no representation. But the corporations, on the other hand, have all the representation, with no taxation.

[RadioGod]

Direct democracy in a large nation is unworkable and is a horrible idea. Our citizens should be working productive jobs, not becoming experts on each piece of legislation so they can cast an informed vote.

A tyranny would be preferable to a direct democracy (outside of a local and homogeneous group).
Tyranny is what happens when a people get lazy and disconnected from how their country is run. You don't like the idea of a direct democracy because you know your views are an extreme minority.

[Mister D]

Wow. We each exercise 1/200,000,000 of sovereign power. I know I feel involved and empowered.

[RadioGod]

Wow. We each exercise 1/200,000,000 of sovereign power. I know I feel involved and empowered.

Expecting more than that is unreasonable. Why do you think your vote for President should be more valuable than all other American's?

[Mister D]

Expecting more than that is unreasonable. Why do you think your vote for President should be more valuable than all other American's?
It's totally unreasonable but then only a complete fool would think a democracy of 330 million souls deserves the name.

[RadioGod]

Our Founders were much wiser than you. Your idea stinks.

Thanks for the non-endorsement. Your input is valued highly. It truly means so much. I will reconsider my position on this matter...... Nope, after careful reconsideration, you are still not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
The founders were smart in the same way a scammer or con artist is smart.

[RadioGod]

It's totally unreasonable but then only a complete fool would think a democracy of 330 million souls deserves the name.
So you admit you are totally unreasonable? LOL.

[Mister D]

So you admit you are totally unreasonable? LOL.
I don't expect much (rather nothing) from a 330 million man democracy. Apparently, you feel empowered. lol

[Peter1469]

There should be at least 200,000,000 eligible voters in the US. Each vote for President should count individually. The electoral college discounts millions of votes. I see you are a fan of the fuzzy math. Your math is correct, but mis-applied.
The almost 3 million voters who didn't have their votes count in the last election of Trump should not have to pay taxes. They had no voice, hence, no representation. But the corporations, on the other hand, have all the representation, with no taxation.

Federalism - it has a meaning. Learn it.

[Peter1469]

Tyranny is what happens when a people get lazy and disconnected from how their country is run. You don't like the idea of a direct democracy because you know your views are an extreme minority.
Incorrect. I don't like the idea of a direct democracy because it is a horrible form of government outside of a small homogeneous community with like-minded individuals.

2 wolves and a sheep vote on what's for lunch....

[Ethereal]

Thanks for the non-endorsement. Your input is valued highly. It truly means so much. I will reconsider my position on this matter...... Nope, after careful reconsideration, you are still not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
The founders were smart in the same way a scammer or con artist is smart.

You're such an edgelord.

[Captdon]

There should be at least 200,000,000 eligible voters in the US. Each vote for President should count individually. The electoral college discounts millions of votes. I see you are a fan of the fuzzy math. Your math is correct, but mis-applied.
The almost 3 million voters who didn't have their votes count in the last election of Trump should not have to pay taxes. They had no voice, hence, no representation. But the corporations, on the other hand, have all the representation, with no taxation.

California Dreamin'

New York, New York.

[Captdon]

Tyranny is what happens when a people get lazy and disconnected from how their country is run. You don't like the idea of a direct democracy because you know your views are an extreme minority.

No, because dumbases(you) would run things.

[Captdon]

Thanks for the non-endorsement. Your input is valued highly. It truly means so much. I will reconsider my position on this matter...... Nope, after careful reconsideration, you are still not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
The founders were smart in the same way a scammer or con artist is smart.

No one would think you are smart.

[Dr. Who]

So Canada's sovereignty is still important and relevant, but the sovereignty of the States is not because... ?
I'm not sure what you are saying here. Of course, the US is a sovereign State and that sovereignty is important. Its separate states are not sovereign because they are not individual nations. The gave up sovereignty to become part of the Republic.

[Ethereal]

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Of course, the US is a sovereign State and that sovereignty is important. Its separate states are not sovereign because they are not individual nations. The gave up sovereignty to become part of the Republic.
They only ceded limited sovereignty to the federal government. They did not forfeit their Statehood by joining into a federation. That's why they're called the united STATES.

[Captdon]

It may not if too many taxpayers leave over high taxes.

The retirees would. Lower taxes would draw them out. Then, whatever taxes the smaller states have would be to the good.

[Peter1469]

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Of course, the US is a sovereign State and that sovereignty is important. Its separate states are not sovereign because they are not individual nations. The gave up sovereignty to become part of the Republic.

Actually they didn't. They only gave up the limited and enumerated powers listed in Art. 1, sec. 8.

[Captdon]

No one is suggesting that the founding fathers were the smartest people that ever lived or that will ever live. However, we cobbled together 13 independent sovereign states to form a specific union, under a contract that provided for certain rights, limitations and guarantees. One of them, which was a HUGE concern was that the big states would have too much influence, resulted in the EC. This was a bargained-for agreement. Had we not cut that deal, over the past 243 years the countries of Ohio, PA, Virginia etc would've found ways to deal with each via trade, collective defense etc. That wasn't necessary b/c they chose to form a republic for the common defense etc. Because you're unhappy with the results of the election (Not you specifically, you generally) you want to change the agreement - to a point where my little state will now be lorded over by your big state b/c you have so many big state people. That hurts my freedom of so many things. Yes, it would be painful and sad to separate but we would recover after our Ohexit and forge trade treaties, etc with the other sovereign states and perhaps the new United States of America. I suspect that we won't be alone. Unwinding it all will be painful and difficult but it can all be accomplished. You can go popular vote all of your big urban states and we'll EC all of the red states, maybe even form a new union. You'll have 10 or 12 states and we'll have the rest.

We would need a rule that once out, always out.

[Dr. Who]

Give me an example.

And "protected" is a funny way of describing the relationship between rural communities and central governments. I'd rather characterize it as "extorted" and "oppressed" so that big cities can mindlessly consume resources while producing very little of tangible value. Indeed, central governments and the big cities in which they reside could not exist without agriculture.
Try all of those farm subsidies that are provided by the federal government. https://www.thoughtco.com/us-farm-subsidies-3325162
I'm not suggesting that farming is unimportant, but farmers would be less well off without the subsidies that they receive from the federal government or the price of food would go up drastically and people would be paying the kind of prices that they do in other countries. However, no matter how you spin it, nations that are primarily agricultural tend to be poor.

[Dr. Who]

Then there would be no liberal programs. There would be no takeover by the federal government. It would be a good thing.

Is this the response you were hoping for?
It would be great for those living California, Texas and New York. Not so much for the people of Wyoming or any other state with a small population. Right now they are being subsidized by the big states.

[Dr. Who]

Actually they didn't. They only gave up the limited and enumerated powers listed in Art. 1, sec. 8.
Sovereignty means answering to no other authority.

[Ethereal]

Try all of those farm subsidies that are provided by the federal government. https://www.thoughtco.com/us-farm-subsidies-3325162

Another good example of how big government helps to destroy small farms.

Anyway, farms can exist without subsidies. But central governments and big cities cannot exist without farms.


I'm not suggesting that farming is unimportant, but farmers would be less well off without the subsidies that they receive from the federal government or the price of food would go up drastically and people would be paying the kind of prices that they do in other countries.

One wonders how American farms managed to exist before federal farm subsidies... it's a miracle anyone was fed in those days.


However, no matter how you spin it, nations that are primarily agricultural tend to be poor.

All civilized nations are "primarily agricultural". Civilization could not exist without agriculture.

[Ethereal]

It would be great for those living California, Texas and New York. Not so much for the people of Wyoming or any other state with a small population. Right now they are being subsidized by the big states.

Wyoming has a larger population than 60 of the world's countries.

[Ethereal]

Sovereignty means answering to no other authority.

Under the constitution, the States don't "answer" to the federal government. The federal government answers to them. Some seem to have forgotten that.