Senate Democrats introduce a constitutional amendment to abolish the

[vz71]

The Founding Fathers understood the danger in a pure democracy in a way that the current crop of leftists, hungry for power, simply do not.

They understand it well.
That is why they work to circumvent it.

 

[HarryStotle]

They understood even more vividly the dangers of a monarchy, having just fought a war to break free from England. I don’t know how they could have had any special insight into the dangers of democracy, having had absolutely no recent experience with it. To them democracy was a theoretical concept that was used only briefly in ancient Greece. If there are special dangers to democracy, I would think that people today would have much more knowledge of those dangers than the founding fathers.

They read and studied Plato and took him seriously.

The problem is that today’s “much more knowledge” isn’t necessarily better knowledge. It isn’t the case that mere quantity of a thing insures quality.

 

[Rhubarb]

A popular vote for President doesn’t make a pure democracy. It’s still electing a representative - it’s still a republic. This same noise was raised when the idea for senators to be elected by their constituents was brought up.

I don’t know why I’m wading into this… I couldn’t care less. I should stop being such a pedant.

 

[GKMotley]

I think pedantry is fine.

Or, as my wife says, nit-picking know it all.

 

[Rhubarb]

There are perfectly reasonable arguments for keeping the electoral college. I just wish people wouldn’t argue on misconceptions, slogans, and talking points.

 

[dvdjs]

There are perfectly reasonable arguments for keeping the electoral college. I just wish people wouldn’t argue on misconceptions, slogans, and talking points.

I wish to win a hundred-million dollar lottery. And I think that my chances are better.

 

[JonNC]

A popular vote for President doesn’t make a pure democracy. It’s still electing a representative - it’s still a republic.

In a manner of speaking, yes, it is still a republic. The problem is the undermining of the state’s role in the federalist system, the centralizing of power. It’s why the 17th amendment was such a horrendous mistake.

 

[Rhubarb]

How about the people’s role in the federal system? The government is by the people, for the people, isn’t it?

The state governments are still in effect, they still are working in their jurisdictions. I don’t see how constituants directly electing their representatives hurts anything.

 

[JonNC]

How about the people’s role in the federal system? The government is by the people, for the people, isn’t it?

1. the people directly elect their representatives.
2. the people (now) directly elect senators.
3. the people elect their state’s electors.

The state governments are still in effect, they still are working in their jurisdictions. I don’t see how constituants directly electing their representatives hurts anything.

The division of powers, as set forth in Article 1Section 8 and the tenth amendment are critical in limiting the power of the general government.

 

[Rhubarb]

I’ve voted in every election my district has ever held since I turned 18. I’ve never once marked a ballot for electors. But that’s beside the point - I don’t see an answer to my question. Just random facts.

And again, for the second bit. I’m not seeing an answer. I know what Section 1.8 says, and the 10th Amendment says. I don’t see how that answers my question.

Just as an aside, I’m not playing partisan gotcha. I’m really curious the answer you might give.

 

[Victoria33]

I was taught we have always wanted to stay away from mob rule.

What if it had been majority vote during other times in our nation’s history?

1860 and so on. Not really looking to debate the specifics, just food for thought.

 

[JonNC]

I’ve voted in every election my district has ever held since I turned 18. I’ve never once marked a ballot for electors. But that’s beside the point - I don’t see an answer to my question. Just random facts.

When you check the candidate, you are voting for the electors for that candidate, but I suspect you know that.
Your question was was how we participate in the federal system. Voting is one way. You can contact your representative, join a group that lobbies, but again, I suspect you already know this.

And again, for the second bit. I’m not seeing an answer. I know what Section 1.8 says, and the 10th Amendment says. I don’t see how that answers my question.

You don’t see how the constitution intended to limit federal power, vouchsafe the rights of individuals and powers belonging to the states?

 

[Victoria33]

It’s the system we have. I don’t see why people are calling it a failure.

If we had a straight popular vote, you can bet that more attention and visits by Presidential candidates would have been made to California and other states. The campaigns would have been run differently. One could argue that some people don’t show up to vote in either deep red or deep blue states because they don’t think their votes count.

 

[RuthAnne]

That’s why I contend that we have never had a popular vote. The popular vote is a myth. That’s not the game we play. If it were a popularity contest, the candidates would have campaigned differently and the voters would have responded much differently. Especially is the more western time zones. It’s a different ball game.

The EC isn’t going anywhere, anyway. And if it does, the Democrats will have a rude awakening. HRC would have had her butt kicked in 2016.

 

[Rhubarb]

I’m getting this confrontational point score-y vibe from your post.

At least in my state, Electors are partisans selected by the party. Our votes just open the gate to let them loose at their ballots. I don’t consider that ‘electing electors’. Electing them gives me the impression of choice, which, I don’t have - I haven’t been allowed to choose my candidate for elector in any meaningful way.

But that’s really the least of my worries.

My question is about where we ought to draw lines about how we as citizens participate in our elections. Stating ‘the Constitution said state legislators pick senators’ doesn’t mean that’s the way it should be. Considering that’s been amended - a process also outlined in the Constitution, that argument can be turned around and we’re at an impasse.

I don’t think the 10th Amendment was designed to protect the States’ power from the citizens. I don’t see how the States lose anything - when the power to govern at the state level is, presumably, for the people and by the people, too. Or to put it another way. I don’t see how granting the citizens a direct vote of senators benefits the federal government as an entity and the expense of the States, as entities. Especially when the States still have broad and profound powers to govern within the boarders of their states. That’s what federalism means, after all. That powers are shared between the national and state governments and we, as people, are governed by both at the same time. (and county governments, and municipal governments, etc.)

And to the second, yes I know my Constitution. I’m not curious about the facts of the Constitution. I’m curious about your reasoning USING the facts about the Constitution.

 

[Peeps]

Half the nation is supportive of Democrats–yes, the half that lives in three big cities (NYC, Chicago, LA), and in the large college towns.

The other half of the nation is spread out all over the country, and they would like a voice, too. They don’t want three cities and some college towns electing the leaders.

BTW, there is yet another movement in Illinois to separate all of us “downstaters” from Chicago and form a separate State. (One name that has been suggested is “State of Lincoln”). For those who don’t know, “downstaters” are everyone in Illinois except Chicagoans

I would be in favor of this. I am so sick of Chicago controlling our State government. I would love a chance to get our high property taxes under control (our city has the 4th highest property taxes in the nation, and it hurts families!).

And it would add yet another state to the Trump-supporting states!

 

[Victoria33]

Israel and India have their elections soon, India might even be today… that is a huge country, even bigger than here by population by quite a bit. I saw some article on how they vote in rural areas. When countries are so big by population and by land, the method of voting needs to be taken into account.

Unfortunately, as a nation we are so very divided now.

Also, if there were a popular vote ever established, India, Iran, South Africa all have tight voting controls. We really need those as well.

 

[JonNC]

At least in my state, Electors are partisans selected by the party. Our votes just open the gate to let them loose at their ballots. I don’t consider that ‘electing electors’. Electing them gives me the impression of choice, which, I don’t have - I haven’t been allowed to choose my candidate for elector in any meaningful way.

Without being confrontational, I think you simply don’t understand the process. You absolutely do choose your candidate. His/her name is on the ballot. In most states, the candidate with the most votes (a very democratic process) wins that state’s electors.

My question is about where we ought to draw lines about how we as citizens participate in our elections. Stating ‘the Constitution said state legislators pick senators’ doesn’t mean that’s the way it should be. Considering that’s been amended - a process also outlined in the Constitution, that argument can be turned around and we’re at an impasse.

I think it should be that way because the senate is supposed to be the body the has equal representation for the states it made state legislators accountable to their constituents, and it made the general government accountable to the states that created it in the first place.
As I said before, the states are called states for a reason. They are not provinces or some other type of local jurisdiction created by the general government. They even maintain the power to dissolve the general government as it now exists.
That would be an extreme step, and avoidable by maintaining the divisions of power set out in the constitution.

Considering that’s been amended - a process also outlined in the Constitution, that argument can be turned around and we’re at an impasse.

Political discussions often end in impasse. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t happen.

I don’t think the 10th Amendment was designed to protect the States’ power from the citizens.

Not sure where you got that idea. The tenth limits the general government, thereby protecting the rights of the individual and state powers.

I don’t see how the States lose anything - when the power to govern at the state level is, presumably, for the people and by the people, too. Or to put it another way. I don’t see how granting the citizens a direct vote of senators benefits the federal government as an entity and the expense of the States, as entities.

I think I answered this above. Senators were answerable to their state legislatures. Their job was to look out for the interests of their state, and thereby the people who lived there. That relationship no longer exists. That has undermined the federalist system.

 

[JonNC]

Especially when the States still have broad and profound powers to govern within the boarders of their states. That’s what federalism means, after all. That powers are shared between the national and state governments and we, as people, are governed by both at the same time. (and county governments, and municipal governments, etc.)

Federalism means more than different jurisdictions having differing powers. It also speaks to the relationship between the general government and the state that created it.
The results in that shift in power have been obvious since the 17th amendment. Power at the central level has increased, while state powers and individual rights have decreased.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Half the nation is supportive of Democrats–yes, the half that lives in three big cities (NYC, Chicago, LA), and in the large college towns.

The other half of the nation is spread out all over the country, and they would like a voice, too. They don’t want three cities and some college towns electing the leaders.

Why would you think that the mere fact of occupying lots of square miles entitles a group of people to have a voice larger than one vote per person? People have voting rights. Square miles do not!

All you have done is identify a minority (rural voters) and appeal for special consideration for that minority. The issue of minority rights is a long-standing issue in any form of government, and no simple solution exists. To illustrate the bankruptcy of your analysis, consider that same analysis applied to a different minority:

Instead of classifying people by the cities or rural districts they occupy, consider classifying them according to their income brackets of 0-100K, 100K-200K, 200K-300K, 300K-400K, 400K-500K, 500K-600K, 600K-700K, 700K-800K, 800K-900K, 900K-1 million. More than half of the nation is all bunched up in the first of these brackets. The rest of the nation is spread out all over the other brackets, and they would life a voice too! They don’t want just one small income bracket electing the leaders. Therefore we need to have a Presidential election system that gives the people in these other income brackets (above 100K) a special higher voice in that election! Ridiculous, isn’t it? Yet that is exactly how your analysis sounds.

Any minority can complain that they do not have a voice. That does not mean all those complaints all have merit!