Senate Democrats introduce a constitutional amendment to abolish the

[JonNC]

Should the people of Montana be able to tell Minnesotans how to run things on the basis of the land they occupy?

The entire basis of our constitutional representative republic was strictly limited central government, that all powers not specifically granted to the general government are reserved for the states and the people.
Many progressives here are constantly for increased government power and control over everyone’s lives.
If progressives were to return to the general government’s limits of power, I would be more understanding of this argument. Otherwise, it rings hollow.

 

[JonNC]

@JonNC,
You are rationalizing, read the link I posted above.

Rationalizing how?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

The electoral college very hurtful to minority rights - particularly minorities that are not concentrated in states where they form a majority. The winner-take-all feature in most states means that such a minority has no chance of combining their vote with others in their minority in other states, unless they can totally win a state. The only minority that the electoral college is kind to is the minority that constitutes the majority in a few states.

There is a remarkable irony here. It n the one hand, the argument against the EC is that the majority (national plebiscite) doesn’t rule. Now, here the argument is that a majority rule within each state shouldn’t rule.

Not ironic at all when you consider what rule we are talking about. When the majority in each state consider issues that are internal and affect only them, of course they should rule. Thus people in Wyoming have no say in the election of the governor of Minnesota. But when those people consider issues that are going to affect everyone in the nation, it seems more fair to let everyone have an equal say as a larger group - not artificially sub-grouped by states first.

LeafByNiggle:

Should the people of Montana be able to tell Minnesotans how to run things on the basis of the land they occupy?

The entire basis of our constitutional representative republic was strictly limited central government, that all powers not specifically granted to the general government are reserved for the states and the people.

What does this boilerplate speech have to do with my words that you quoted?

Many progressives here are constantly for increased government power and control over everyone’s lives.

Retiring the EC would not adversely affect that situation.

 

[JonNC]

Not ironic at all when you consider what rule we are talking about. When the majority in each state consider issues that are internal and affect only them, of course they should rule.

Under the EC, it does only affect the choice of electors for that state. Unless of course a state signs on to the egregious scheme of applying a state’s electors to the national plebiscite vote.

Thus people in Wyoming have no say in the election of the governor of Minnesota.

And the voters and electors in Wyoming should have no say on the vote for electors in Minnesota.

But when those people consider issues that are going to affect everyone in the nation, it seems more fair to let everyone have an equal say as a larger group - not artificially sub-grouped by states first.

Then you are calling for a national vote for every senator and every House member, as well.
Further, there is no artificial sub-group involved. The state’s are states. They are not creations of a central government.

What does this boilerplate speech have to do with my words that you quoted?

It is a response to the contrived notion that states are merely parcels of land, that each state providing its electoral votes is somehow unfair to other states.

 

[JonNC]

Retiring the EC would not adversely affect that situation.

I know. It would help the process along of undermining our federalist system, and transferring greater power to the general government.
That’s the whole point of trying to repeal the EC.

 

[Peeps]

I think we have to be careful not to think that the POTUS (and the Executive Branch) has more power than he/she has been granted in the Constitution.

There are many checks and balances written into the Constitution, so even if the duly-elected President (as elected by the Electoral College) turns out to be a despot or a dud, his/her power will be effectively limited (squelched)! by the Legislative and the Judicial Branches. And there is that option of impeachment, which has been utilized in the past–it’s not just a “theoretical” option.

We’ve seen this happen over and over again with Pres. Trump–he is checked on every side by various courts and by the House and Senate, and is continually threatened with impeachment. He does NOT have absolute power, not by a long shot! It’s obvious that this frustrates Pres. Trump, as it also frustrated Pres. Obama and many other Presidents! But it’s the law, and he cannot railroad through it.

Our so-wise and God-guided Founding Fathers wrote a Constitution full of checks and balances that have protected us for over 200 years from any would-be dictators (or even from a businessman who sometimes seems like he just wants to pronounce the new policy and watch everyone either obey or resign!).

The various amendments to the Constitution have made us even safer from tyranny (with the possible exception of the very open-ended 14th Amendment!)

So IMO, it would be a huge mistake to mess around too much with a document that has done pretty darn good for over two centuries! Definitely not perfect, but we’re all still hanging together and working towards that lofty goal of a “more perfect Union”, in spite of a Civil War and Indian wars, and race, sex, religious, and sexual orientation conflicts. People from all over the world still seek to move to the U.S.A. either temporarily or permanently, so we must be doing something right.

I say, back off from abolishing our Electoral College. If the “minorities” (race, sex, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, etc.) want more “clout,” then they need to get busy and make lots of friends with the "majorities"and persuade them to go along with their ideas, which they have in many cases–African Americans are certainly better off now than they were before the Civil Rights Act was passed primarily by WHITE men!

And if the Big Cities want more “clout” in the Presidential election, then they need to tone down their extreme views and talk/work with the despised “irredeemables” in the “backwaters” to come up with mutually-satisfactory (shudder!) compromises! I would suggest that they begin by taking a hard and honest look at the abortion issue and be willing to back down on “free abortions for every woman during the entire duration of her pregnancy, including the labor phase,” which seems to be the goal of so many of the left-leaning Democrats. It’s kind of hard for decent folks to take seriously people who think it should be legal to kill innocent human beings. That’s a definite conversation stopper.

 

[Theo520]

Here is a good article on the EC, written just after the election

Above all, the electoral college had nothing to do with slavery. . . .
And the simple fact remains, from the record of the Constitutional Convention’s proceedings (James Madison’s famous Notes), that the discussions of the electoral college and the method of electing a president never occur in the context of any of the convention’s two climactic debates over slavery.

If anything, it was the electoral college that made it possible to end slavery, since Abraham Lincoln earned only 39 percent of the popular vote in the election of 1860, but won a crushing victory in the electoral college. …

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Under the EC, it does only affect the choice of electors for that state.

The “effect” of the state-wide vote is only one thing: the choice of electors (or, more accurately, the choice of EC votes, since the EC has become just a rubber stamp for the state-wide vote). That choice itself has only one effect, and that is the choice of the President, which affects us all. So there is no way to construe the Presidential vote as something that affects only the people in that state.

Then you are calling for a national vote for every senator and every House member, as well.

The function of senators and House members is quite different from Presidential electors in three respects.

1. Senators and House members bring the local concerns to the Senate and House for each bill that comes up for debate. Each bill is viewed by the senator or representative through the lens of how that bill would affect his or her constituents. At the time of the election, no one knows what bills will come up, so it is necessary to have someone there to make those decisions in the best interests of their constituents at the time they come up. Not so with Presidential electors. They do not bring the concern of the people of their state to the many many unanticipated decisions that the President has to make in the course of his term. They only make one decision. It is essentially automatic (could be made by computer) and then they retire for the next four years.
2. Senators and Representatives are generally more knowledgeable about the details of the bills they consider. The general public does not have the time, the expertise, or the ambition, to research each and every bill. And so they designate these representatives to make decisions on their behalf. On the rare occasion when a bill is particularly newsworthy, many citizens do take it upon themselves to inform their representatives what they think of that particular bill, and if that representative wants to keep his or her seat, they will listen and take those communications into account. Not so with the Electoral College. In theory the electors could act like more knowledgeable officials to overrule the vote of the people in their state, but in practice it never happens. In some places it is prohibited by law. So the vote they cast for President is no more informed or intelligent than the vote that elected the electors.
3. The sheer number of bills debated in Congress makes it impractical to ask the general public about each and every one of them, even if the public were sufficiently informed to make that decision. The Representatives in Congress make those many decisions that it would be impractical to make by a national plebiscite. Not so with the EC. They do not serve that function either. There is only one decision they have to make before they retire (and they don’t really make it, since it is generally automatic). It is no less practical to ask the general public who they want for President than to ask the public to choose electors to make that same exact decision that they already made.

 

[JonNC]

The “effect” of the state-wide vote is only one thing: the choice of electors (or, more accurately, the choice of EC votes, since the EC has become just a rubber stamp for the state-wide vote). That choice itself has only one effect, and that is the choice of the President, which affects us all. So there is no way to construe the Presidential vote as something that affects only the people in that state.

It only affects others in terms of the constitutionally granted powers of the executive, and then properly proportional to that’s state’s representation determined by the census. That’s how a representative republic works.

The function of senators and House members is quite different from Presidential electors in three respects.

The functions do not matter. Your representative and senators vote in Congress on laws that apply to me. By your proposal, I should have a say in your representatives.
Further, since parcels of land do not matter, anyone anywhere in the world should get a vote. After all, other countries benefit from our foreign aid, or suffer the consequences of our military might.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

The “effect” of the state-wide vote is only one thing: the choice of electors (or, more accurately, the choice of EC votes, since the EC has become just a rubber stamp for the state-wide vote). That choice itself has only one effect, and that is the choice of the President, which affects us all. So there is no way to construe the Presidential vote as something that affects only the people in that state.

It only affects others in terms of the constitutionally granted powers of the executive, and then properly proportional to that’s state’s representation determined by the census.

In other words, it affects all of us, as I said. I’m glad you agree with that point now.

The function of senators and House members is quite different from Presidential electors in three respects.

The functions do not matter.

The functions of EC electors do indeed distinguish them from the Senators and Representatives, so that one can argue to eliminate one but not the other.

Your representative and senators vote in Congress on laws that apply to me. By your proposal, I should have a say in your representatives.

If you read my description of the functions of representatives and senators you will see why my proposal applies to the EC in ways that it does not apply to senators and representatives.

Further, since parcels of land do not matter, anyone anywhere in the world should get a vote.

I see that you are struggling mightily to misapply a very reasonable argument of mine, but your misapplications are obvious. People in other countries would only have a say in bodies that encompass both our country and theirs…

 

[JonNC]

In other words, it affects all of us, as I said. I’m glad you agree with that point now.

And the appropriate participation of each state is their electors.

The functions of EC electors do indeed distinguish them from the Senators and Representatives, so that one can argue to eliminate one but not the other.

To do so, particularly with senators, is inconsistent at best.

If you read my description of the functions of representatives and senators you will see why my proposal applies to the EC in ways that it does not apply to senators and representatives.

Except that it doesn’t.

I see that you are struggling mightily to misapply a very reasonable argument of mine, but your misapplications are obvious. People in other countries would only have a say in bodies that encompass both our country and theirs…

There is no struggled. It is easily applied.
If the complaint is that people live in differing parcels of earth, and parcels of earth should not matter in the electoral process, consistency requires that we allow Greeks in Athens, as an example, to vote.
One can’t claim, on the one hand, that parcels of land do not matter, then dismiss the logical extension of that same argument.
States are not mere parcels of land, but one must undermine their importance in order to promote a national plebiscite and by extension, an ever strengthening central government.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

The functions of EC electors do indeed distinguish them from the Senators and Representatives, so that one can argue to eliminate one but not the other.

To do so, particularly with senators, is inconsistent at best.

I gave three very detailed reasons why senators and EC electors are different, and you have not mentioned, much less refuted, any of them. That makes your flat claim of inconsistency, well, flat.

If you read my description of the functions of representatives and senators you will see why my proposal applies to the EC in ways that it does not apply to senators and representatives.

Except that it doesn’t.

Still no evidence that you even read my 3 reasons.

I see that you are struggling mightily to misapply a very reasonable argument of mine, but your misapplications are obvious. People in other countries would only have a say in bodies that encompass both our country and theirs…

There is no struggled. It is easily applied.
If the complaint is that people live in differing parcels of earth, and parcels of earth should not matter in the electoral process, consistency requires that we allow Greeks in Athens, as an example, to vote.

Misrepresenting my argument (obviously).

 

[JonNC]

Senators and House members bring the local concerns to the Senate and House for each bill that comes up for debate. Each bill is viewed by the senator or representative through the lens of how that bill would affect his or her constituents.

The senators are supposed to look out for their states, too. This was undermined, in large part, by the 17th amendment.

Not so with Presidential electors. They do not bring the concern of the people of their state to the many many unanticipated decisions that the President has to make in the course of his term. They only make one decision. It is essentially automatic (could be made by computer) and then they retire for the next four years.

Of course they bring the concerns of the residents of the state. They represent the choice of the residents of that state as to who they want as commander-in-chief, the chief executive.

Senators and Representatives are generally more knowledgeable about the details of the bills they consider. The general public does not have the time, the expertise, or the ambition, to research each and every bill. And so they designate these representatives to make decisions on their behalf.

Which is one of the reasons why we have a representative republic and not a democracy.

Not so with the Electoral College. In theory the electors could act like more knowledgeable officials to overrule the vote of the people in their state, but in practice it never happens. In some places it is prohibited by law. So the vote they cast for President is no more informed or intelligent than the vote that elected the electors.

The vote they cast is informed by the citizens of their state. The citizens of each state make their choice and they depend upon their electors to represent their choice. It II, in this way, the same as the legislative branch. Each congressional district’s citizens make their choice of who they want to represent them in the House.

The Representatives in Congress make those many decisions that it would be impractical to make by a national plebiscite. Not so with the EC. They do not serve that function either.

It isn’t their job to serve as legislators. They serve the purpose of representing their states, and the choice of the voters within their state. The person they help choose through the EC also doesn’t serve in the same capacity as the legislators.

As I said earlier, these three items are are irrelevant. The fact is, in the wake of the 17th amendment, the states’ remaining influence on the general government that they created, other than article 5, is the EC.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Of course they bring the concerns of the residents of the state. They represent the choice of the residents of that state as to who they want as commander-in-chief, the chief executive.

If you read what I said, I said they did not bring the concerns of their state to individual decisions the President has to make. So they do not serve a comparable purpose to senators and representatives that do bring the concerns of their state to individual bills. That was what I was arguing, remember? That they were different? (Since you said if was against one I had to be against the other.)

Not so with the Electoral College. In theory the electors could act like more knowledgeable officials to overrule the vote of the people in their state, but in practice it never happens. In some places it is prohibited by law. So the vote they cast for President is no more informed or intelligent than the vote that elected the electors.

The vote they cast is informed by the citizens of their state.

That’s exactly what I said. The electors do not add any additional knowledge or expertise like the senators and representatives do, which again was my point. They are different.

The citizens of each state make their choice and they depend upon their electors to represent their choice. It II, in this way, the same as the legislative branch. Each congressional district’s citizens make their choice of who they want to represent them in the House.

Citing ways in which the EC and representatives are similar does not refute the arguments I made about how they are different.

…continued…

 

[LeafByNiggle]

…continuing…

The Representatives in Congress make those many decisions that it would be impractical to make by a national plebiscite. Not so with the EC. They do not serve that function either.

It isn’t their job to serve as legislators.

Right. Again, they are different, which was my point. I’m glad you finally see it.

As I said earlier, these three items are are irrelevant. The fact is, in the wake of the 17th amendment, the states’ remaining influence on the general government that they created, other than article 5, is the EC.

You seem to be trying to draw a strong distinction between the people of a state and the state it self as an entity. If the state itself deserves any consideration at all, it is because of the people that live in that state. If all the people of Wyoming moved out, what sense would there be to speak of the rights of the state of Wyoming? No, if the people of Wyoming have influence over the federal government then the state of Wyoming has influence over the federal government. The 17th amendment is simply to avoid the legislative corruption of the state legislatures, where senatorial elections by that legislature were bought and sold by vested interests, and the people had no direct say in their election.

You know, for someone who rails against excessive government power and in favor of individual liberties, you seem to want put as many administrative levels between the people and their leaders as possible. You do with with the EC, and and do it through castigation direct election of senators. Here’s a bright idea: Why not have an EC in each state for the election of governor. Each state legislative district will get one EC vote for governor, and those votes will choose the governor. Or better yet, have those electors elect another level of electors that will ultimately cast votes for the governor.

 

[JonNC]

If you read what I said, I said they did not bring the concerns of their state to individual decisions the President has to make.

Of course they are not sitting in the Oval Office with the president, but they certainly do bring the concerns of citizens from individual states. One can see that in the example of Trump’s work in trade deals in response to his promises in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

That’s exactly what I said. The electors do not add any additional knowledge or expertise like the senators and representatives do, which again was my point. They are different.

They add the informed choice of the citizens of individual states. You might not think that is important, but it is foundational in federalism.

Citing ways in which the EC and representatives are similar does not refute the arguments I made about how they are different.

Perhaps, but whatever differences you perceive are irrelevant to the critical importance of the EC to our republic and federalism.

 

[HarryStotle]

You know, for someone who rails against excessive government power and in favor of individual liberties, you seem to want put as many administrative levels between the people and their leaders as possible.

Don’t you find it puzzling, to say the least, that those who want to do away with the electoral college to “empower” the individual voter and give each citizen more “fair” representation, are the same people who want to remove voter ID, fight against cleaning up voter rolls, open the borders, let undocumented aliens vote, let criminal felons vote, and encourage all kinds of vote harvesting or delayed counts purely for the sake of counting as many votes – no matter their provenance – to gain as much power as possible?

Perhaps the case you are trying to present would be more credible if it corresponded in other ways to making the governing class more responsible to the citizens of the country, rather than trample the rights of actual citizens for the sake of political ideology and retention of power.

 

[JonNC]

Right. Again, they are different , which was my point. I’m glad you finally see it.

And the judiciary is different than the executive.

You seem to be trying to draw a strong distinction between the people of a state and the state it self as an entity.

Actually, that is what you’ve been doing. The difference I’m pointing out is that each state is a separate entity, not mere provinces created by a central government. We are not Canada. The United States are a federation of states, and they created the general government. The citizens in each state have that distinction of citizens of a state, as well as the republic.

If the state itself deserves any consideration at all, it is because of the people that live in that state.

The state deserves consideration because it is a state! It has borders and a constitution, and citizens that vote and are represented by representatives theysend to Congress. They send two senators each because the state is the original and, for the citizen, should be the most important level of government.

The 17th amendment is simply to avoid the legislative corruption of the state legislatures, where senatorial elections by that legislature were bought and sold by vested interests, and the people had no direct say in their election

So now we have the power and corruption at the general government level. The representatives at the state level have far fewer constituents, and therefore subject to local pressure. That local pressure is now removed, centralizing special interest influence in Washington.

You know, for someone who rails against excessive government power and in favor of individual liberties, you seem to want put as many administrative levels between the people and their leaders as possible.

Please. Would you say that the level of power in Washington has increased or decreased since the passing of the 17th amendment?
Madison’s comment about democracy being the right of the people to choose their own tyrant rings so true.
And of course, growing central power has created layer upon layer of powerful administrative agencies, all of them isolated from citizen control, and having more and more authoritarian power over their lives.
And in order to continue such usurpation, the mirage that direct democracy improves citizen control over government has to be perpetuated. Next step? End the EC.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

If you read what I said, I said they did not bring the concerns of their state to individual decisions the President has to make.

Of course they are not sitting in the Oval Office with the president, but they certainly do bring the concerns of citizens from individual states.

“They” don’t bring anything because they are not human. They are automatic computerized votes. And “they” cannot anticipate what decisions will come up, so they could not possibly give advice on individual issues, but senators and representatives are human and do bring the concerns of their state to individual issues when they come, which shows they are different.

One can see that in the example of Trump’s work in trade deals in response to his promises in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

That is an example of a Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

That’s exactly what I said. The electors do not add any additional knowledge or expertise like the senators and representatives do, which again was my point. They are different.

They add the informed choice of the citizens of individual states.

That’s not “adding”. That is relaying or delivering, similar to the post office. The post office does not add information to the letters it delivers.

Citing ways in which the EC and representatives are similar does not refute the arguments I made about how they are different.

Perhaps, but whatever differences you perceive are irrelevant to the critical importance of the EC to our republic and federalism.

A critical importance you have failed to demonstrate.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

You seem to be trying to draw a strong distinction between the people of a state and the state it self as an entity.

Actually, that is what you’ve been doing. The difference I’m pointing out is that each state is a separate entity, not mere provinces created by a central government. We are not Canada. The United States are a federation of states, and they created the general government. The citizens in each state have that distinction of citizens of a state, as well as the republic.

You are giving me a civics lesson on how things are now. I know how things are now, and that is not under dispute.

If the state itself deserves any consideration at all, it is because of the people that live in that state.

The state deserves consideration because it is a state!

Meaningless statement.

It has borders and a constitution, and citizens…

There it is! Citizens! People! Without them the state is nothing.

The 17th amendment is simply to avoid the legislative corruption of the state legislatures, where senatorial elections by that legislature were bought and sold by vested interests, and the people had no direct say in their election

So now we have the power and corruption at the general government level. The representatives at the state level have far fewer constituents, and therefore subject to local pressure.

If there is corruption at the federal level, that corruption is unaffected by whether the senators are directly elected or through the legislature. Direct election reduces the corruption that was real and evident, not just theoretical, in the appointment of senators.

You know, for someone who rails against excessive government power and in favor of individual liberties, you seem to want put as many administrative levels between the people and their leaders as possible.

Please. Would you say that the level of power in Washington has increased or decreased since the passing of the 17th amendment?

Another Post hoc ergo propter hoc argument, eh?