V
Victoria33
Guest
There is no reason for this kind of language. And besides, all you are talking about is mob rule. That’s all your cities should have the same weight argument is.
Senate Democrats introduce a constitutional amendment to abolish the
- Status
T
Theo520
Guest
I think you vastly underestimate the power of POTUS.
The populist party would consistently control veto power, which would effectively neuter the opposition who represent minority interests.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
There’s no reason for that kind of language. The majority of a civilized society is not a “mob”. And I still claim that there is no reason to give people who occupy more land a bigger voice in politics just because they occupy more land, which is all your argument does.LeafByNiggle:
There is no reason for this kind of language. And besides, all you are talking about is mob rule.
V
Victoria33
Guest
I would humbly opine that the electoral college is exactly about keeping mob rule away.
America was born. In ways, we were very rural, then, the industrial revolution came about and the cities grew.
America has always been about having individual freedoms at the forefront.
That’s why I don’t think there is anyway, we are going to have this “majority rule” law come into play, it is not in the interest of the Republic.
America was born. In ways, we were very rural, then, the industrial revolution came about and the cities grew.
America has always been about having individual freedoms at the forefront.
That’s why I don’t think there is anyway, we are going to have this “majority rule” law come into play, it is not in the interest of the Republic.
P
Peeps
Guest
It’s not the “people” that elect the President. It’s the states.
Each state is different, and the people who live there are citizens of that state and share common hopes, dreams, goals, and miseries with all the other people who live in that state.
The United States of America is just that–a nation of states that are united. We are not a nation of people who are united.
That’s the way the Constitution was set up. Some people claim the electoral college was created to get the slave states on board. Perhaps, but the main reason the EC was created was to keep the states united instead of creating a country like Europe consisting of many separate nations that share land and that’s it.
Many younger people (and some older people) resent having their “individuality” overruled by a “State.” They don’t get the “United States,” and that’s too bad. Perhaps all the divorce and broken families and bussing to schools all over the map–perhaps all this fragmentation makes it difficult for people to feel connected to their country.
Each state is different, and the people who live there are citizens of that state and share common hopes, dreams, goals, and miseries with all the other people who live in that state.
The United States of America is just that–a nation of states that are united. We are not a nation of people who are united.
That’s the way the Constitution was set up. Some people claim the electoral college was created to get the slave states on board. Perhaps, but the main reason the EC was created was to keep the states united instead of creating a country like Europe consisting of many separate nations that share land and that’s it.
Many younger people (and some older people) resent having their “individuality” overruled by a “State.” They don’t get the “United States,” and that’s too bad. Perhaps all the divorce and broken families and bussing to schools all over the map–perhaps all this fragmentation makes it difficult for people to feel connected to their country.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
You are just telling me the way things work now. I understand that. This discussion is about whether it should work that way.
That is very doubtful. There is more diversity within each state than there is between states. Consider if the apple farmers in the state of New York share common hopes, dreams, goals, or miseries with the people in Manhattan, or do they share more in common with farmers in Missouri? Perhaps states were more internally uniform at the time of the founding of our nation, and that is why the founders felt it necessary to protect the unique interests of each state. But with increased mobility and diversity of the economy, that is less true today. And so the question comes up from time to time about this strange system we have for electing our President.
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.
Last edited:
Should New York be able to tell Alabama how to run things on the basis of having more people?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Should the people of Montana be able to tell Minnesotans how to run things on the basis of the land they occupy?
Last edited:
D
dvdjs
Guest
I wouldn’t mind favoring Montanans. It’s the over-empowerment of folk from Wyoming that bothers me.
Last edited:
X
Xystus
Guest
Never did i say that states can not join the " National Popular Vote Interstate Compact" if that is what they choose to do. Never did i say that i do not respect the right of states to do this if they want. I think its dumb to effectively give your electoral votes to other states but those states can do what they want within the boundaries of the constitution. I have said this before here, here and here. If you are going to accuse me of inconsistently favoring states rights then at least know what you are talking about before you do so.
T
Theo520
Guest
They don’t control what happens everywhere, but they do have to be listened to.
What you call over-empowerment is the act of giving the minority a voice.
D
dvdjs
Guest
They get a proportionately strong voice. And unlike the originl colonies and some other later states, the predominant people there had no state existence outside of their association with the federal government.
T
Theo520
Guest
You are joking, right?
CA and NY aren’t controlled by WY. They can tax their citizens to their heart’s content, and spend the money as they wish. WY isn’t stopping them from having great education, etc.
You are forgetting states rights me think.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Np. The the number of electoral college votes per capita. You will see that each voter in WY has a much strong voice in the Presidential election an in the Senate of the US than those in CA and NY, and pretty much everywhere else.
This state had no existence outside of its affiliation with and dependence on the Federal government. Whatever rights it has is, honestly, derive from its association with the Federal government.
T
Theo520
Guest
a lame deflection.
Their rights derive from their agreement with other states, not a federal govt.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Neither lame nor a deflection. It is really at the cru of the relevance of the Electoral College.
Their entanglement with and reliance on the Federal government antedates their interaction with other states; their “state” was a creation of the Federal government.
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
Here is a good article on the EC, written just after the election
https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...the-electoral-college/?utm_term=.0d9dac8a31c5
https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...the-electoral-college/?utm_term=.0d9dac8a31c5
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.
This appears to have an identity politics undertone, as well. Americans are Americans. The only minority involved in a given state are those whose candidate had fewer votes.
- Status