Can our democracy survive if most Republicans think the government is illegitimate?
- Status
Exactly.billsherman:
Indeed. They didn’t want a national referendum on federal offices. They didn’t even want statewide referendums on senators. The goal was to have the states represented in the senate and the people represented in the congress. A balance of power between the states and the people.
Genius really.
I find it astounding that the same progressive movement that undermined that balance now wants to reduce, first, state influence on the election of the president, and second the equality of all states in the senate, are the people who are accusing Trump of undermining the system.
Last edited:
S
sallybutler
Guest
I moved here for work reasons from CA. Did you know the property tax rate and sales tax rates are higher in Kansas than in California. Yeah, most people don’t realize that.
But your poor rep has to represent more people than mine, so I guess Kansas is more fair than NC also. Cool
But your poor rep has to represent more people than mine, so I guess Kansas is more fair than NC also. Cool
N
Nepperhan
Guest
The electoral college was established to let the smaller states have more sway in the presidential election. It was favored by the southern states (who blocked its elimination) because it counted the population in apportioning electors. So, it first counted non-voting slaves. Then, in the early 20th century, it counted blacks who were prevented from voting. So those southern states got many more votes than was reflected in their statewide vote totals.
The last attempt to eliminate it was in 1968, again voted down by southern states. George Wallace in his run for president had angled to prevent either candidate from getting 270 electoral votes. Then he could use his ability to let his electors vote for another candidate (and name a president) as a bargaining chip. The cost for his support was to be a lessening of attempts at desegregation. Once again, the EC would be used to disenfranchise minorities.
Fortunately, one candidate (Nixon) got to 270 without any outside help so George Wallace became an also-ran, not a king-maker.
The last attempt to eliminate it was in 1968, again voted down by southern states. George Wallace in his run for president had angled to prevent either candidate from getting 270 electoral votes. Then he could use his ability to let his electors vote for another candidate (and name a president) as a bargaining chip. The cost for his support was to be a lessening of attempts at desegregation. Once again, the EC would be used to disenfranchise minorities.
Fortunately, one candidate (Nixon) got to 270 without any outside help so George Wallace became an also-ran, not a king-maker.
Last edited:
That’s up to the voters in those states. None of my business.
Actually, no. The representatives represent roughly the same number of people (except for very low population states where they get one regardless). That’s why we gave a census with reapportionment every ten years.
P
pnewton
Guest
That was more than 230 years ago, and a lot has changed. Specifically the impact of communication and transportation making us more homogeneous, as well as the astounding growth in the power of the presidency. The Constitution was written to be amended, and we really have not kept up with it too much. If I were to make a proposal, I think it would be time to narrow the representation gap with another compromise, maybe one vote per state plus one vote for each representative. Voters in the smallest states would still have double the voting power, but the gap would narrow.
S
silentwitness
Guest
It was disgusting along with blatant lying in the media and the weaponisation of government against the elected leader and his administration…
Trump has been the best president in my lifetime and one important thing he did was to expose the political class as an enemy of the people feeding off tax payers money for their own benefit.
To the extent that this included over the top COVID health scares, unethical political witch hunts, purposeful destructive economic shutdowns and fraudulent elections is simply a matter of degree for me.
The problem with a corrupt political elite and media is that you cannot count on them to tell the truth and do what is required of them.
The last 4 years has shown that there is a corrupt political elite that President Trump, in his own way, labelled the swamp. Going forward this is the greatest obstacle facing western democracy.
M
MikeInVA
Guest
The story of the US could be described as one long discussion over federal versus state power. It’s been a losing fight for states’ rights, especially since the Civil War ended.
R
RootKitWarrior
Guest
Trump said he would drain the swamp. All he did was was fill the swamp will more gators. His administration has been Scandal filled. The Cabinet and Staff turnover is astronomical compared to the past 4 or 5 administrations.
T
TMC
Guest
Yes, that one. The one that was agreed to by the people of these United States at that time, and which has been changed from time to time, and can be changed again if that is the will of the people. That system.
V
Victoria33
Guest
All false. He took on the Swamp and they struck back. It’s the vindictive nature of the Democrats that persecuted him.
And who cares if he had tudrnover, that’s irrelevant.
It has been a losing fight for a few reasons.
- Democrats abused the tenth amendment in order to violate the rights of blacks for decades.
- parallel to that, progressives have been attempting to undermine federalism snd the primacy of individual rights in favor of strong central government for a hundred years or more.
T
Theo520
Guest
Yes, DC has long been ‘pay for play’
But I don’t fault the company who donated to the Clinton Foundation much compared to the Dept of State using such donations to determine who got access. The CF is just a pertinent example, any child or family member acting as a lobbyist is part of the problem.
=====
A cartoon on the OP topic I thought funny
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
But I don’t fault the company who donated to the Clinton Foundation much compared to the Dept of State using such donations to determine who got access. The CF is just a pertinent example, any child or family member acting as a lobbyist is part of the problem.
=====
A cartoon on the OP topic I thought funny
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
J
JimG
Guest
We will soon be back to the normal pro-abortion anti-Catholic agenda. Business as usual. Little Sisters of the Poor, call your lawyers.
P
pnewton
Guest
How do you get more fetid than putting your own family as part of the administration when they have no experience, and try to bully governors and legislators into overturning an election based on your belief you should have been elected?
There is a swamp alright, for another month.
S
silentwitness
Guest
I think you are wrong with your premise so your question loses intelligibility for me.
Another case of talking past each other.
As i have said many times here, we are drifting into different groups and we should criticise the Left for that because it aggressively polices a philosophy that constantly wants to redefine narratives, religion, ethics, law, the constitution, elections, history, language and of course news.
We will not survive as a community with the continuation of the Leftist philosophy and our church at many levels is choosing this failure, hence its own failure over the preceding decades.
Last edited:
Suudy
Active member
Nepotism and graft aren’t new. It didn’t start with Trump, nor do I think it any worse under Trump than any other administration. And it certainly is not worse than any of the myriad of tyrannies, despotisms, monarchies, empires, etc. throughout history. I just finished a book by Ian Mortimer about Henry IV, and it is a fascinating picture into the level of family connections and buying of influence that I don’t think any American today would tolerate.
Last edited:
P
pnewton
Guest
Thinking back, wasn’t JFK the last president though to appoint a family member to be on staff at the White House? It is the last one I remember. I know nepotism is nothing new, but it does belie the whole “drain the swamp” idea, unless nepotism is not considered problematic, which is just odd.
Suudy
Active member
I’m not limiting my analysis to the presidency or the cabinet. Government in general is flush with nepotism and graft for appointments, grants, legislation, zoning, variances, etc. The “drain the swamp” rhetoric did not appeal to me because I viewed it as an impossibility. At best, I considered it a reduction in regulatory burden, which has occurred.
Perspective I guess.
Perspective I guess.
- Status