Electoral college

[zz912]

Probably already stated in this thread, but still going to state it. The people do not elect the President. The STATES elect the President. People have completely forgotten that the United States of America is a collection of STATES.

People have completely forgotten their allegiance to their state & home, and only think of themselves as Americans, but not Iowans, Georgians, Californians, etc.

 

[ProVobis]

It’s also a pretty good system that prevents both tyranny of the majority and the minority.

Depends on how you look at it. The popular vote gives each U.S. citizen an equal voice in determining the eventual outcome, whether he’s a big city person, a farmer, a homeless person, an absentee living outside the U.S., and so on. But as it stands voting by this method without the electoral college is unconstitutional.

 

[ProVobis]

We already have a tyranny of the minority because the big states are underrepresented in the House of Representatives which means the small states are overrepresented in the EC.
The fix would be to implement the Wyoming Rule:

This would make the Electoral College fair but I doubt those who are singing its praises would care for the results.

Agreed. I had to do it myself to realize it. See post #217.

Perhaps the discrepancy is demonstrated better in the Senate where 6 senators represent the populous west coast and some 24 (or more, depending on how you look at it) senators represent the much less populous states immediately east of there. No wonder interstate projects such as the Keystone pipeline become such big political issues.

 

[oldcelt]

Depends on how you look at it. The popular vote gives each U.S. citizen an equal voice in determining the eventual outcome, whether he’s a big city person, a farmer, a homeless person, an absentee living outside the U.S., and so on. But as it stands voting by this method without the electoral college is unconstitutional.

 

[oldcelt]

I have no problem dividing EV by Congressional districts. This would also reduce the impact of voter fraud by several factors.

I would agree only if all partisan gerrymandering was eliminated. I support splitting EV by percentage of statewide popular vote as the best compromise position. The GOP fears one man, one vote and will fight tooth and nail to preserve the EC…they know that they cannot win nationwide without it.

 

[oldcelt]

Probably already stated in this thread, but still going to state it. The people do not elect the President. The STATES elect the President. People have completely forgotten that the United States of America is a collection of STATES.

People have completely forgotten their allegiance to their state & home, and only think of themselves as Americans, but not Iowans, Georgians, Californians, etc.

That is because it is a nineteenth century, confederate concept whose time has long passed.

 

[JonNC]

That is because it is a nineteenth century, confederate concept whose time has long passed.

No, it isn’t. Any process that limits the power of government in one place is a good thing. In fact, we need to repeal the 17th amendment, returning more power and influence to the states. We need a Supreme Court that will strictly enforce the originalist view 10th Amendment.

It is progressive, socialist thinking whose time has passed.

Jon

 

[oldcelt]

No, it isn’t. Any process that limits the power of government in one place is a good thing. In fact, we need to repeal the 17th amendment, returning more power and influence to the states. We need a Supreme Court that will strictly enforce the originalist view 10th Amendment.

It is progressive, socialist thinking whose time has passed.

Jon

Good luck with all that.

Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right. It may be said, that the succeeding generation exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to nineteen years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be, indeed, if every form of government were so perfectly contrived, that the will of the majority could always be obtained, fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves; their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils, bribery corrupts them, personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise, so as to prove to every practical man, that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal." –Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:459, Papers 15:396

 

[JonNC]

Good luck with all that.

He might be right. Time to reconsider the Articles of Confederation?

 

[oldcelt]

He might be right. Time to reconsider the Articles of Confederation?

Confederations do not last…look at the EU. Let’s start small…maybe the EC.

 

[JonNC]

Confederations do not last…look at the EU. Let’s start small…maybe the EC.

Okay. Let’s start small - repeal the disastrous 17th amendment, which has allowed the central government to dangerously usurp power.

The EC is reflective of the make up of the legislative branch. This is a good thing. It places the election of the president the hands of the states. This is most important for maintaining what is left of federalism. Within those parameters, changes to the EC are worth looking at, such as more states awarding electors via congressional districts, and the two representing senators by state popular vote.

National plebiscite is an absolute non-starter.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Okay. Let’s start small - repeal the disastrous 17th amendment, which has allowed the central government to dangerously usurp power.

The EC is reflective of the make up of the legislative branch. This is a good thing. It places the election of the president the hands of the states. This is most important for maintaining what is left of federalism.

Are you sure federalism, or at least your vision of federalism, is a good thing? I mean, maybe it is, but shouldn’t you have to make that case explicitly instead of assuming it as an axiom?

 

[stevegravy]

No, it isn’t. Any process that limits the power of government in one place is a good thing. In fact, we need to repeal the 17th amendment, returning more power and influence to the states. We need a Supreme Court that will strictly enforce the originalist view 10th Amendment.

It is progressive, socialist thinking whose time has passed.

Jon

I would add canning the 16th as well. Get rid of the income tax and the uncontrolled power of the federal government dries up instantly. Make it live off of excise tax and tariffs and voila it becomes grammatical to say the United States are verses an United States is.

 

[stevegravy]

Okay. Let’s start small - repeal the disastrous 17th amendment, which has allowed the central government to dangerously usurp power.

The EC is reflective of the make up of the legislative branch. This is a good thing. It places the election of the president the hands of the states. This is most important for maintaining what is left of federalism. Within those parameters, changes to the EC are worth looking at, such as more states awarding electors via congressional districts, and the two representing senators by state popular vote.

National plebiscite is an absolute non-starter.

Money is the power. That comes with the 16th amendment. The 17th amendment allowed state appointed senators to become independent little princesses and princes of the realm. As long as these public servants can gather in enough bribes aka (campaign donations) they can continue their operations indefinitely. This was predicted accurately when progressives started lobbying for the 17th amendment.

It was also predicted quite accurately, that now independent not beholding to a state government for their appointment, they would be quite eager to involve the country in endless wars and foreign intrigue. The anti 17th amendment folks were pretty prescient but not persuasive. Couldn’t beet the idea of common folks power grab and voting themselves goodies from the public treasury.

 

[zz912]

Are you sure federalism, or at least your vision of federalism, is a good thing? I mean, maybe it is, but shouldn’t you have to make that case explicitly instead of assuming it as an axiom?

1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated **the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, **but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."7

1884 God has not willed to reserve to himself all exercise of power. He entrusts to every creature the functions it is capable of performing, according to the capacities of its own nature. This mode of governance ought to be followed in social life. The way God acts in governing the world, which bears witness to such great regard for human freedom, should inspire the wisdom of those who govern human communities. They should behave as ministers of divine providence.

1885** The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention.** It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order.

1894 In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, neither the state nor any larger society should substitute itself for the initiative and responsibility of individuals and intermediary bodies.

2209 The family must be helped and defended by appropriate social measures. Where families cannot fulfill their responsibilities, other social bodies have the duty of helping them and of supporting the institution of the family. Following the principle of subsidiarity, larger communities should take care not to usurp the family’s prerogatives or interfere in its life.

1904 "**It is preferable that each power be balanced by other powers and by other spheres of responsibility which keep it within proper bounds. **This is the principle of the ‘rule of law,’ in which the law is sovereign and not the arbitrary will of men."24

 

[JonNC]

Are you sure federalism, or at least your vision of federalism, is a good thing? I mean, maybe it is, but shouldn’t you have to make that case explicitly instead of assuming it as an axiom?

If one believes, as I do and as history has shown, “power corrupts, …”. Unless you know of a differrent way to limit central government power, which protects individual rights, then yes, federalism is critical. In fact, while I’ve never been a fan of an article 5 convention, calling one to re-establish the original limits on the central government would probably be a good thing.

 

[JonNC]

Money is the power. That comes with the 16th amendment. The 17th amendment allowed state appointed senators to become independent little princesses and princes of the realm. As long as these public servants can gather in enough bribes aka (campaign donations) they can continue their operations indefinitely. This was predicted accurately when progressives started lobbying for the 17th amendment.

It was also predicted quite accurately, that now independent not beholding to a state government for their appointment, they would be quite eager to involve the country in endless wars and foreign intrigue. The anti 17th amendment folks were pretty prescient but not persuasive. Couldn’t beet the idea of common folks power grab and voting themselves goodies from the public treasury.

I don’t think there’s anything you’ve said here that is inconsistent with what I’ve said. Certainly the 16th amendment has been just as destructive of the federalist, limited power goals of the framers.

 

[JonNC]

1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated **the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, **but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."7

1884 God has not willed to reserve to himself all exercise of power. He entrusts to every creature the functions it is capable of performing, according to the capacities of its own nature. This mode of governance ought to be followed in social life. The way God acts in governing the world, which bears witness to such great regard for human freedom, should inspire the wisdom of those who govern human communities. They should behave as ministers of divine providence.

1885** The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention.** It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order.

1894 In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, neither the state nor any larger society should substitute itself for the initiative and responsibility of individuals and intermediary bodies.

2209 The family must be helped and defended by appropriate social measures. Where families cannot fulfill their responsibilities, other social bodies have the duty of helping them and of supporting the institution of the family. Following the principle of subsidiarity, larger communities should take care not to usurp the family’s prerogatives or interfere in its life.

1904 "**It is preferable that each power be balanced by other powers and by other spheres of responsibility which keep it within proper bounds. **This is the principle of the ‘rule of law,’ in which the law is sovereign and not the arbitrary will of men."24

 

[oldcelt]

Okay. Let’s start small - repeal the disastrous 17th amendment, which has allowed the central government to dangerously usurp power.

The EC is reflective of the make up of the legislative branch. This is a good thing. It places the election of the president the hands of the states. This is most important for maintaining what is left of federalism. Within those parameters, changes to the EC are worth looking at, such as more states awarding electors via congressional districts, and the two representing senators by state popular vote.

National plebiscite is an absolute non-starter.

Absolute non-starter because of gerrymandering. The right/GOP knows that they can’t win if popular vote is reflected in any way…even percentage appropriation. The district idea was attempted here in PA and slammed to the ground because it was such an obvious ploy to take further advantage of partisan gerrymandering. The people rose up.
The second president in 20 years to lose the popular vote, this time by nearly 2%, will keep this Madisonian/slavery anachronism in the public mind. Changes that more closely approximate the pv are inevitable, IMO.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated **the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, **but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."7

1884 God has not willed to reserve to himself all exercise of power. He entrusts to every creature the functions it is capable of performing, according to the capacities of its own nature. This mode of governance ought to be followed in social life. The way God acts in governing the world, which bears witness to such great regard for human freedom, should inspire the wisdom of those who govern human communities. They should behave as ministers of divine providence.

1885** The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention.** It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order.

1894 In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, neither the state nor any larger society should substitute itself for the initiative and responsibility of individuals and intermediary bodies.

2209 The family must be helped and defended by appropriate social measures. Where families cannot fulfill their responsibilities, other social bodies have the duty of helping them and of supporting the institution of the family. Following the principle of subsidiarity, larger communities should take care not to usurp the family’s prerogatives or interfere in its life.

1904 "**It is preferable that each power be balanced by other powers and by other spheres of responsibility which keep it within proper bounds. **This is the principle of the ‘rule of law,’ in which the law is sovereign and not the arbitrary will of men."24

This does not contradict the 17th Amendment as JonNC seems to believe.