On Second Thought - There is No Deep-state
- ahorsebackposted 7 years ago
0No deep state - Its all right in front of you !
Obviously the Trump Obstruction is laid naked for all to see . The establishment on both sides in DC , WITH what I had always thought [ rightfully so ]was a leftist media - Leftist and Right media collusion , though ,--Even Fox News --, which is about half and half obstructing , Is fighting Trump front and center !
Now Why ? Here's the part most don't get or don't want to get , Trump IS THE PEOPLES surprise for Washington D.C.s continued gridlock , spending frenzies and obstruction of progress . Congress and Senate of BOTH parties are totally taken aback by the peoples choice in theNov. elections , By the creation of the electoral College what happened in November was never supposed to happen The established fat , lazy , career criminals were always supposed to have their finger on the election machine from the back side !
Thee established right lost
The established left lost
Their established media lost
Chuck Schummer , Paul Ryan lost
Now , all of the above are Obstructing Pres. Trump . All of them . Does anyone here believe that the will of the people electing Trump is worth fighting for ?No, he is not the will of the people just the result of an anomaly regarding the Electoral College. This will have to be scrapped if it continues to give too much representation to the relatively insignificant.
That "relative insignificance " being the majority of America ? What problem is it you have with elections other than you can't have another govmint' raise ?
"... too much representation to the relatively insignificant."
Geez Cred! Do you understand how elitist and snobbish, and, and .... blubblub... bblubbblub ... (imagine Lewis Black with hands and head shaking), that sounds?
What the hell happened? Are you trying to validate the rants you are responding to?
GAI'm with credence on this one. The small states get greater representation in the Senate, relative to
population. Everyone gets equal, geographical representation in the House. The president serves the entire country and should be elected by individual votes. The electoral college failed us. That is not elitist; it is logical and a more accurate representation of the voter's wishes.It would be logical if our nation was a Democracy, but we are not, and you know that, so it is not logical.
ps. Are you with him on the "hayseeds" perspective also?
GANo, but I have to question the judgment of those who voted for him. He is not just incompetent, he is dangerously unfit, both emotionally and intellectually. Over half the voters could clearly see it. Others, not so much. I know some people will believe I'm dismissing those voters simply because their politics run counter to mine. Not so. I couldn't stand GWB, but he was within the bounds of normal. I seriously question the judgment of anyone who thinks our current president is within the bounds of normal.
With regard to your comment about what is logical. No, if we were a pure Democracy, each state would not be represented by two senators regardless of population. That, I believe, is compensation enough for the less populated areas.
One last note. A large portion of our electorate is sadly undereducated and unable to discern fact from propaganda. Many are also exceedingly tribal. These segments intersect in larger numbers in rural America, for many reasons, but in large part because of the lack of exposure to a wide variety of cultures and ideas. I resent that this small but significant segment has a disproportionate say in who will be president, given that they are already given a greater voice in the Senate.Just a couple reasons why democrats failed incredibly though ;
Corruption , Lies , cheating , stealing , leaking , more lies and even death at the DNC , buying votes with promises of free immigration policies , laying waste to the first amendment , you actually purchased $ the mainstream media , celebrated the Snowden leaks , the Assange Wiki parade colluded with foreign governments through the Clinton Foundation criminal Dynasty , Obama loaded down the federal courts and affected influence by corrupting the IRS to target conservatives , the border patrol to influence the Hispanic votes , corrupted the high schools and colleges leadership to gain new liberal votes , paraded , rioted and justified the killing of cops , walked all over the whole BLM uprising ,.............I could go on .......bottom line
You Still Lost .
Okay , lets even call it the "Hayseed Factor " But WHO they are, is the one segment of the American population that has not only seen more than once throughout our history but fully recognizes the incredible corruption of Promises made , and never once delivered by the Democratic party of America .
Might want to change your tack .PrettyPanther, You offer a couple good discussion points. One would be that you have inserted your definition of normal as the definition of normal, and the second is your idea that small states receive disproportionate Senate representation.
The first point is undeniably arguable, because it is only your, (and those like-minded folks you allude to), opinion of what normal is. An athlete's normal calorie intake might be 5000 calories. Would you consider that a normal intake for you? A Japanese-American might think it perfectly normal to bow as a greeting, and sit on the floor for every meal. Would you consider that as normal for you?
As to your Senate representation opinion, why do you think small states have greater representation? The Senate is a chamber of state representation, not population representation - that is the House's purpose. So in the Senate every state has equal representation. How do you justify declaring it unequal, with the small states benefiting? A state is a state. That was the original design. Similar to your contention that a person is a person - one vote per person.
But... we have made progress, I can agree with you that some voters, (or even voter segments), are politically "under-educated," I just can't go along with rest of your last paragraph's description. Too many of your attributions are just your opinion, and obviously my opinion says your opinion is wrong. And of course my opinion is right, right?.
ps. I was on my toes this time - I saw the "under-educated" use, (even if it was misspelled) ;-)
GAObviously, there is no one definition of normal. However, in the field of psychology, there are certain basic parameters that loosely define normal and Honest Don scoots or surpasses the edges on quite a few of them. You can agree with me or not, but I know I am correct on this point. ;-)
Yes, Senators represent the states in which they are elected. Likewise, the President represents the country in which he is elected. So, tell me again why we need to give some states a greater proportionate say in electing a person to represent the United States of America?
As for the rest, yes, my opinion.So it WOULD be fair if primarily liberal majority city population centers elected the president in each election?
In the same way it is fair that a primarily conservative Governor is elected in states with conservative majorities, yes. Or, do you think that is also unfair?
Sate power shifts are different , Most balance their legislature's majority ideologies with opposing governors as well they should , respectfully , that is what makes America's experiment work as well as it does , ............quite ideologically balancing .
I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
The electoral system across state and federal lines is pretty well balanced and so counterbalanced , many states have imbalance's in their legislatures , often offsetting that with an opposing governor , example , If a primarily democratic legislature can pass anything they want all the time ,then at least a republican gov. can veto a bill . The US constitution and system of federal government was designed to protect small states and their populations from large states overpowering them at the federal level of legislating .
Balancing of power in America's government system is paramount , unfortunately even to functioning government.
I don't have to tell you again... you almost got it on your own:
" the United States of America,"
you just stopped a little short...
" the United States of America
Now if the Senate is an equal representation of the states, and the House is a proportional representation of the citizens, then your real beef is with the electoral college, and all that other stuff about disproportionate representation in the Senate was just you clutching for rationalization, right?
I even agree with you that our president represents our country - all of it, and our country is a republic of states. So what if we just have the Senate, as representatives of the states, elect the president. And the states can decide who to vote for by polling their citizens. That would be fair and equal representation wouldn't it? One state - one vote?
GAYes, my beef is with the electoral college. I'm not sure why you didn't think that is what I was saying all along.
Clutching at straws? No. I'm saying there is no legitimate need for the electoral college. The issue of equal representation of states is addressed in the Senate. The issue of direct representation is addressed in the House. Please explain why it is necessary to have states vote for a president who represents all of us? I know that is what our Constitution prescribes, but that doesn't mean we can't legitimately question its efficacy in a new era. It should be done with great care by greater minds than mine. In fact, quite a few constitutional scholars say the electoral college was a compromise to slave states and is no longer needed.Yes, Prettypanther, I did know that your complaint was with the Electoral College, (EC), but I wanted to first clear away the underbrush of your rationalizations and declarations that the the smaller states were disproportionately represented by having the same amount of Senators as the large states. You did say that didn't you? We can agree that the Senate is a state-representing chamber and that all states are equally represented can't we?
You are partially right about the EC too, but it had multiple purposes. Another was, as also designed in other aspects of our Constitution, as a protection for the smaller and less populated states from the tyranny of unrestricted control by the larger more populated states. I think this election proved the EC worked as designed in this aspect.
But there was also another intent, one I think I recall being promoted by Jefferson, and one that I think your side might say failed to work. That was for the EC to be an escape hatch to keep an unqualified candidate from being elected by an ignorant or uninformed general citizenry.
It was his idea that the EC electors could, in such a case, vote their conscience, instead of their state mandate, to deny the popular-vote candidate victory. You will probably remember hearing talk in this past election about "faithless" electors. Those would be the ones Jefferson was thinking of.
It should be noted that there are multiple documented references of both our Founders disliking and fearing pure democracy, and not wanting it to be the controller of our national government, and, of Jefferson's aristocratic disdain for the ability of the common man to make informed national government decisions.
All of that explanation is to make the point that your complaints are groundless. You are complaining that something which isn't is unfair. We do not elect our president by popular vote - purposely, by Constitutional design.
As to your Constitutional scholars, I am not one, but I will still presumptuously disagree with them. With the exception of the abolition of slavery, my opinion is that the dangers the EC was designed to protect us of from are as much a real danger today as they were perceived to potentially be then.
Of course you can complain, and work to change the Constitution, but you cannot legitimately say the EC is unfair, or that your complaints are valid, or that the election was stolen because a majority of citizen voters didn't elect Pres. Trump.
GAFirst, I have never said the election was stolen. Honest Don is our president, fair and square.
Second, in my first post on this subject, I said the electoral college failed us. I didn't elaborate, but what I meant is that the electors should have protected us from Honest Don and they didnt. In fact, if the electors had chosen someone else, we would now be hearing Trumpeters loudly proclaiming the election was stolen from their man, even though it would have been constitutionally sound (assuming the electors who changed their votes did not break any state laws.). So, that "check" against an uninformed electorate electing an unqualified candidate failed miserably. In fact, it was the electoral college that enabled the election of an unfit president.
Third, yes, we can agree that the Senate is a state-representing chamber and that all states are equally represented. As It currently stands, It is also a mechanism by which rural voters get a disproportionately higher representation in the framing of our laws (Wyoming citizens get two votes per 500,000; California gets two votes per 40 million).
Your point that the EC serves as a protection for the smaller and less populated states from the tyranny of unrestricted control by the larger more populated states is where I have a problem. I see no need for this in the election of a person who is supposed to serve every citizen. Why should citizens in less populous states have a greater say simply by virtue of where they live? Maybe it made some sense when rural areas did not have access to the same information and services as urban areas, but that is not the case in modern times.
Having a popularly elected President would not translate to making the U.S. a pure democracy. Our laws would still be made by the vote of senators and representatives.
Yes, I am in favor of changing the Constitution to eliminate the EC and if it happens some day then perhaps you will see my "complaints" (I prefer to call them "observations") are valid.I had to look hard PrettyPanther, but I did find some fault in your comment.
I still don't think your concept that the Senate offers small states unwarranted representation is the right way to look at it. It looks like an apples and oranges comparison to me. Our Congress was designed that way. Both Houses must reconcile a law to get it passed.
... and the main reason I don't agree with you about a popular vote election of the president is that that office is also intended as a check on the other two branches. Consider that both houses were held by one party. Look at the times in the past when the Executive branch was not held by the party that held the Legislative branches. Or vice-versa, I will bet you will find instances where a presidential veto was the last stop-gap for bad, or at least contrary to the good of the nation, legislation.
Look at the Constitution's design in the light of its intended checks and balances design. There must be at least one branch that is not strictly popularly elected, or we lose one of those important checks-and-balances mechanisms.
Now, before you think we are in complete disagreement, look at the parts I did not disagree with. The least important of which is your contention that the Constitution can be changed. (although I don't yet agree that it should be)
I think the 3-branches, checks-and-balances design is genius, and as structurally sound, valid, and necessary now as it ever was.
I just have to work harder to get you to see that the Senate and House representations are two different things - for a reason. That the purse strings are held by the most proportionately representative House, to most express the will of the people, is the strongest representation of the people. The Senate, with only two representatives was/is intended to represent the wisdom of the people. I certainly hope that you can agree that the "will" and the "wisdom" are frequently not the same. Hence the need for the reconciliation of both before something can be accomplished.
GAso, what constitutes "wisdom"? Is it education, wealth, power? Do we find our way back to the aristocracy that I want to avoid. Why would I presume that these 'wise guys' are anything more than a 'house of lords' that are simply retaining its dominance over the rest of us?
Cred, you are determined aren't you!
What would constitute wisdom? If you looked at a line-up of, say, a young man drowning in boy-toy credit card debt, and a young man with some boy-toys, but no boy-toy debt, and an 800 credit rating, and a young man with no boy-toy debt, but no credit rating either... would you be able to pick out the one most likely to be "wiser" than the other two?
If you were looking for the wisest candidate, what would you look for? The most level-headed perspectives? The one with enough life experience to know that in the color spectrum of reality, black and white definitives only make up about 10%, and the rest is gray? The one that knows which battles are worth fighting, and which aren't?
You get the idea. My "wisdom" comment was directed at intended composition, not necessarily the resulting composition. But you can be sure that none of the criteria that I would see as indicators of wisdom are defined by wealth, power, education, or aristocracy.
It's a concept bud. The Founder's intention. Whether we follow it or not is another matter. And whether we follow it or not does not invalidate the concept. It just means we are either smart or stupid voters.
As for your 'why... presume...' question, you wouldn't presume anything. You would make your best evaluation, vote by it, and hope you were right. I am not defending the Senate population as being what they were intended to be, I am just stating what they were intended to be - by design.
GA
GA, I have read and re-read your reply, and I'm still not clear on your reasoning for not electing a president by popular vote. Senators are represented by popular vote of each state, and representatives are elected by popular vote within each district. I get that. So, you are saying that the president should not be elected by popular vote, as a protection of some sort against the uninformed electorate? So, by that, I assume you mean that electors in the EC could, if they chose, select someone who did not win the popular vote in their state? This sounds great in theory, but we both know that if that happened, supporters of the candidate who won the state would believe the election was stolen from them if their electors chose someone else. Besides, please correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't each individual state set the laws by which electors must abide? So, for example, in some states the electors are divided proportionally while, in others, the electors are "winner take all" and some states can legally fine an elector who does not vote as pledged, I think. [Note: I think that there is some question of the constitutionality of a state not letting an elector vote as they wish, but again, I am no expert. I believe I have read that this issue has not been thoroughly tested, but if the founders wanted electors to be a safeguard against the uninformed electorate selecting an unfit president, it would seem they should be able to change their vote without punishment.]
I realize my own limitations of knowledge of how the EC works, so I might be saying some really dumb things....
Anyway, I'm not clearly understanding your argument about why the president should not be elected by popular vote, and I freely state that I am not an expert and greater minds than mine should make this decision. However, I also cannot understand why the Electoral College formula should tilt the scales in favor of less densely populated rural states. What is the rationale for that, in this modern era? I think you asked credence what has changed between then and now that would call for changing the EC system? I would say that the cultural divide between rural and urban dwellers has grown. I supposed that could be an argument for keeping the rural advantage in the EC, to avoid "mob rule," but the end result is that now we have rural voters selecting a president that is out of touch with the majority of citizens in this nation. Rural voters are a significantly more homogeneous group than urban voters. So, this relatively homogeneous group has a disproportionately greater say in who is elected president than the more diverse urban segment. To me, that is troubling, and perhaps the opposite of what our constitution strives to achieve.
Thank you for your tenacity in this discussion. My brain enjoys the workout, even if it exposes my sometimes huge gap in knowledge.I think (think!) I understand what GA is saying.
"...the end result is that now we have rural voters selecting a president that is out of touch with the majority of citizens in this nation."
Your statements says it, although one must dig a little, keeping in mind that our country is a republic of individual states, "little countries" so to speak, and those "little countries" are not a homogeneous mix of philosophies - they are very, very different. You mention rural vs urban, but that is only one of those differences. Yes, Trump is "out of touch" (read it as a different philosophy) with the tiny majority that would control all our presidential elections with a popular vote, while the much larger majority of "little countries" would never, ever see representation in the White House.
"I would say that the cultural divide between rural and urban dwellers has grown. I supposed that could be an argument for keeping the rural advantage in the EC, to avoid "mob rule," but the end result is that now we have rural voters selecting a president that is out of touch with the majority of citizens in this nation."
Again, you're complaining that a quite large majority of states are over-riding a tiny majority of people, but is this a bad thing? The option is that that tiny majority (less than 2%) will absolutely control the White House - one of those "checks and balances" GA speaks of will no longer be any balance at all. Remember, always, that our country is a republic of states and not a homogeneous mix of people everywhere.
I read where the SCOTUS has agreed to once more open pandora's box in the form of redistricting (in Wisconsin, I think). The article I read mentioned one of the Carolina's where the plan was shot down by the courts, and it was a telling point that while the proposed plan guaranteed black representation, that representation was so small as to be insignificant and useless. With popular votes that is what we will find at the federal level as well - total urban control of both house and White House, with only the senate left to provide checks on urban philosophies - trying to do so on both house and White House forever. Rural states, and more importantly rural people, will never have any significant voice at all.
I used to agree with you...until this election and I looked at county by county breakdown of how the vote went. A few small spots of blue in a sea of red; even blue states were mostly red (check California or Oregon - "hotspots" of liberalism)! Off the top of my head, there might have been a few hundred blue counties, but there were thousands of red ones. This is what you are forgetting; that that sea of red is at least[i] as important to the country as those spots of blue. If we allow the philosophy of urban USA to absolutely dominate the political scene we will [i]all be the loser. To date both parties have been pretty well represented in the presidency, but that would almost certainly change with a popular vote. As you point out, the gap is widening but one of the things so necessary and useful is to have and keep alternative thoughts and philosophies alive and well.You thought right Wilderness. Nice explanation. Especially the Red County/Blue County illustration.
GA
Hello again PrettyPanther, I noticed Wilderness' response to your comment, and his was a good explanation of why I think the Electoral College is as important and needed now as it was when it was designed. So let's look at your other questions.
The easiest one was the first one - the presidential popular vote question.
As long as you consider that in reality, pure democracy is no different than mob rule - majority rules, whether it is is 6 vegans in a group of 10 diners, or 60 million in a group, (nation) of 100 million. On decisions to be applied to the whole group, the minority is controlled by the majority. Also remember that in pure democracy, the majority gets to make the rules.
As I explained in my homeowner's association analogy to Credence2, even if a governing charter, (constitution), has minority group protections, in pure democracy the majority can change those rules whenever they want. We saw this in the Senate already, once when the Democrats unilaterally changed a filibuster rule, (2013), and this year when the Republicans did the same thing. The majority changed a rule that protected a minority.
Also, our Constitutional writers did not want a pure democracy government. They saw and feared the potential dangers of - mob rule!
That is my main reason for opposing a pure democracy popular vote for the president. My reasoning is that we are not a single nation of people, we are a single republic of states - which is where all the people are. And it is the states where the popular vote most represents the will of the people in that group, (the state). Wilderness' point about the Red county-Blue county election map seems to prove this point so conclusively that I struggle to understand why anyone can argue it beyond just on the basis that they want something to be what it was designed to not be.
Our president is elected by the will of the people, (their pure democracy popular vote) of the states though the vote of their state's electors, to be the leader of our nation of states. A popular vote presidential election would take away any state's importance, or choice, in such an election. The rural voters we all use to represent non-high density voting areas, would in effect become second-class citizens relative to a voice in our nation's direction.
I think our past presidential elections offer proof. Consider the campaigns. Candidates focus on the Big States, the Swing States. How often do you hear a Idaho, or Wyoming, or other smaller states getting presidential visits? They didn't. Until this election. Pres. Trump went to those small states. He went for their electoral votes. Just his act of campaigning there told them they were important. How many candidate visits or presidential considerations do you think they would get if they no longer had even the small lure of electoral votes?
Do you think it would be equitable for a small mid-western town to have to live by the same rules and laws as San Francisco? I hope you can answer no, because what follows is why should Kentucky have to live by California's rules.
That is an already lengthy response, so I will be brief on the EC. You were correct in your understanding of its current form and restrictions.
Now is different than then. As you noted, we now have laws in almost all states that require electors to follow the popular vote, which greatly weakens that "escape hatch/Wisdom cushion" power of that original EC purpose. Back then, Electors weren't constrained by mandatory choice restrictions.
GA
We are not a democracy? So what are we when a handful of rural states can rule the day and have their choice over areas of greater population?
Credence2, that is just your angst speaking, and I think you know that. Your handful of "rural states" was 30 states, (and not all rural states), 60% of all states. That qualifies as a majority, not a handful -
and it was a larger majority than the one you tout as the legitimate vote winner. And since our nation is a republic of states - not people, then it was in fact, the majority of states that ruled the day.
Isn't that the way it is supposed to be? Isn't that the way we were constitutionally designed to be? Aren't you a supporter of our Constitution?
GACredence2, that is just your angst speaking, and I think you know that.
------------------------------------------------
What about your angst, GA, angst in assuming that popular sovereignty represents 'mob rule'
What is it about conservatives and fear of popular sovereignty? From them we always need a paternalistic referee to keep the 'rabble' out of line as they will run off with the store? We have the Bill of Rights that provide basic protections against tyranny from the majority. But that does not apply to politics. Conservatives are afraid of female presidents, popular election of senators, resisted extending the franchise to others whenever it was called for. Why does this stuff come from the right, each and every time?
---------------------
Your handful of "rural states" was 30 states, (and not all rural states), 60% of all states. That qualifies as a majority, not a handful -
and it was a larger majority than the one you tout as the legitimate vote winner. And since our nation is a republic of states - not people, then it was in fact, the majority of states that ruled the day.
-----------------------------------
Maybe, people should be electing the President and not states, just like Senators should be popularly elected and not appointed. The closer to the people, the better the accountability to them.
-------------------------------
Isn't that the way it is supposed to be? Isn't that the way we were constitutionally designed to be? Aren't you a supporter of our Constitution?
---------------------------------------
Yes, but the Constitution can be amended. There were plenty of things that have changed since the Constitution's creation, and there are likely to be more in the wingsCredence, you have me a bit worried. You must have had a brain fart. Surely you know that our Senators are elected by popular vote, and not appointed!
But as for my angst, I have none. Let me explain why I think pure democracy is nothing more than mob rule. I will use a smaller than national example, but the difference is just a matter of scale
Take a neighborhood association of 49 home owners. Each home owner gets one vote. Representative representation, in the form of one vote per home, ensures the majority will of the home owners controls their community. But, if every occupant of those homes had a vote, then that would be pure democratic rule. The chances of majority home owner control could be jeopardized.
Now say a 50th property joins the association, a condo building with 100 units. Each occupied by 4 drug-using, drug-selling armed thugs.
Now, under one vote per property, the home owners still have a fair representation of their wishes. But... by popular sovereignty, those 400 thugs could now control the governing of the community.
The home owners association charter also had a "Bill of Rights," and like our Constitution, it too had mechanisms to change the charter. And by the power of their popular vote majority, those thugs changed that Bill of Rights to their liking.
Do those 99 home owners still have control of their community? Can you see this as an example of mob rule?
To finish, and as I also mentioned to Prettypanther, yes, our Constitution can be changed, and that is how to legitimize your complaints. Until those changes occur, our system is working exactly as designed, and your criticisms are not valid
As also mentioned to PrettyPanther, if you consider the basics of our Constitution, and not the adjective details, I don't think anything has drastically changed. We still face the governmental and national issues that prompted our Constitution, and were specifically addressed in our Constitution. And we still face, perhaps even more direly, the same human foibles that our governmental structure, and Bill of Rights was designed to protect us from.
In other words, the room might have been redecorated, new paint, new curtains, new technology, but the basics of the room and its occupants are the same now as they were then.
We have had interesting discussions about this before, and I would enjoy talking with you about just what basic changes you think have occurred that merit abandoning our representative form of government.
GAI know that Senators are popularly elected, certainly did not mean to give you the perception otherwise.
From your point of advocacy, if not pure democracy, what would call that that it is mixed with?
Take a neighborhood association of 49 home owners. Each home owner gets one vote. Representative representation, in the form of one vote per home, ensures the majority will of the home owners controls their community. But, if every occupant of those homes had a vote, then that would be pure democratic rule. The chances of majority home owner control could be jeopardized.
------
Just working with your example:
Who is to say that those that live in the home do not have a voice, are they not all owners, since they pay property taxes and are responsible? The only entities in your example that could be reasonably be excluded are minors. It is not the will of the home owners, but the will of the one who supposedly is to represent them, does this reflect the will of the residents? That is why I had problems with appointed Senators in principle. You are advocating 1 state, one vote. Why are all the residents of the housing just mere chopped liver, why one representative per house, instead of several? I do not know if what you provide here is really a good example. The representative by State, you have with the Senate, the most powerful of the two legislative bodies. The House of Reps give support to the issue of population differences within the state. The President is above the states and represent the people directly and I would prefer that they be elected by the people directly. Regardless, of the 50th property unit being a condo, occupied by thugs, it does not reduce their individual rights in proportion to this issue any more.
Because a paternalistic sort is not in control to thwart the will of the people in favor of their desire hiding behind the ruse that 'the mob' is inherently dangerous and lack the ability to select for themselves their appropriate leaders, I must take issue. I am sure that conservatives made the same argument in opposition to the direct election of Senators, 'handing over the reins of government to insolent rabble'?
With appointment of Senators, I could not know if the Governor were not appointing plutocrats in office in defiance of the best wishes of the people. Rich people have an interest in maintaining their advantage against the rest of us and you know that that concept is as old as the pyramids.
---------
Now say a 50th property joins the association, a condo building with 100 units. Each occupied by 4 drug-using, drug-selling armed thugs.
Now, under one vote per property, the home owners still have a fair representation of their wishes. But... by popular sovereignty, those 400 thugs could now control the governing of the community.
-------
Your 400 thugs are my 400 votes, I don't qualify them as long as they are citizens of the housing complex.
------
The home owners association charter also had a "Bill of Rights," and like our Constitution, it too had mechanisms to change the charter. And by the power of their popular vote majority, those thugs changed that Bill of Rights to their liking.
---------------------------
We know in reality that changing the Constitution by amendment is not a routine exercise. And how it would fit in here would remain to be seen. But, popular sovereignty cannot in itself change the Constitution, and it cannot change the "Bill of Rights" for the Home Owners Association.
Do those 99 home owners still have control of their community? Can you see this as an example of mob rule?
-------
In actually there are thousands of home owners, from your example and it is not mob rule but democracy at work. When the representative gives the same power to a studio apartment owner as to a condo development with hundreds of residents, I am going to have a problem.
------------------------------
To finish, and as I also mentioned to Prettypanther, yes, our Constitution can be changed, and that is how to legitimize your complaints. Until those changes occur, our system is working exactly as designed, and your criticisms are not valid
----------------------------
There is pressure on to look at this far more carefully, but as you and I both understand this cannot be just changed willy nilly. Because of the tremendous effort needed, the chances are that we will be stuck with the EC for a time. But things can and do change, the history of the Constitution, the changes in the document and its interpretation over 240 years attest to that.
We have spoken on this before, it is a hot topic and we are not going to hear the end of it.
------------------------
We have had interesting discussions about this before, and I would enjoy talking with you about just what basic changes you think have occurred that merit abandoning our representative form of government.
-------------------
Lets.....Just popping in here to say that characterizing the elimination of the EC and electing the president by popular vote as "abandoning our representative form of government" is way over the top.
Too bad you don't love in a full democracy , Got to go find you one ?
I am with Panther.
I capitulated to the idea of the Electoral College earlier for the following reasons
1. The process has been established by the Constitution
2. It helps to keep the peace among the varied states
3. Instances where the Electoral College result was contrary to the popular vote were rare.
Well, no 3 is changing in nature, what once occurred every other century, is now down to every other election cycle. That's my problem with it now.
I never intend to say disparaging words about my fellow citizens who reside in rural areas. But, I do not want them to have representation in the electoral process beyond their numbers. With the changes as of late, I am forced to subscribe to the idea of one man/one vote.What you're missing entirely is the definition of a Republic , that which we are , America is a grouping of equally powerful , individual states .
Might try a dictionary
Of course to liberals ;
Lose a hard fought , incredibly corrupted game
Change the rules .
Liberals just can't stand it that a "hayseed" has the same equal representation in government . There is something wrong with that huh ?I cant stand the idea of the vote of 1 man having more weight than the vote of 100. When it comes to votes and choice, yes, California trumps Wyoming.
And California would trump the rest of the nation in electing liberals in every major election . But somehow that's a your definition of democracy ? Come on get serious,......
- Check out the major population center numbers in America
- Who controls them
- How they always Vote
- How that would square against the vastly significant state representation of our Republic .
This is why your democratic lead cities are all in such economic turmoil. for one thing One controlling ideology .
I sure am glad that liberals tend to love urbanity and crowds ....... sorry ,a little dig there.We are going to see how bad it can get in Illinois by the 30th if they cannot come up with a budget for a third straight year.
Illinois State Official: "We Are In Massive Crisis Mode, This Is Not A False Alarm"
* http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-1 … alse-alarm
Anybody want to move to Illinois? They may have to end the welfare state and tell people they have to get a job to eat, and of course they want to raise taxes. $15.1 Trillion in debt. That's Obama's home State.
Chicago Taxi Industry Near Collapse
* http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-1 … g-collapse
I don't know of any laws where a State can file for bankruptcy. But, residents are about to find out about all the fraud and corruption by government officials and want to kill them.And California would trump the rest of the nation in electing liberals in every major election . But somehow that's a your definition of democracy ? Come on get serious,.....
If the majority of the electorate under the rules of popular sovereignty want that, then so be it.
Yes, urban dwellers vote heavily Democratic, but California has rural areas as well, they vote. It is certainly not democratic to have 1 vote take precedence over 100. Rightwingers get as much representation as they can organize through agreement and coalitions around their arcane ideas. Being rural does not have to be the only qualification for being conservative, you could be some evangelical, a fiscal conservative, a military sabre rattler, etc. Do you homework and get these disparate groups together and win elections without having them given to you because those of the Green Acres are upset, and want disproportionate representation.
What GOP run city is so exemplary then?
While the progressive position is generally superior to that of the conservatives, I live in a rural area and some of my best friends are rural dwellers.Oh my gawddd!
"... some of my best friends are..."
Look around bud, try to grab a tree branch or root, or something... on your way down.
GAWe get on just fine as long as we avoid speaking about politics. I think that we sense that between each another.
Ha! Politics is the best part of our discussions. Just think how deep into the rhetoric of pure partisan rant you would be if I wasn't here to pull you back from that reason-sucking abyss. You speak of the "enlightenment" of Progressives, you should appreciate my help keeping you from slipping back a level or two.
GA ;-)I like to think I bring you away from that crimson red stance that you tell me you want to avoid. You have a reputation of reasonableness here and we respect that. But you are still quite conservative by my standards, that is ok, because nobody is perfect. Most of my neighbors would not and could not relate to a libby like me. I am a democrat and I am not going to help that fact that I believe that our perspectives, ones on the left, are better. But, I am always open to evidence that I am incorrect. If that evidence is compelling enough, of course.
Welll.... You do cause me to be sure of my thoughts before confirming them. And our discussions have helped me broaden my perspective. But there has always been a safe gap between my Purple perspectives and those Crimson Red absolutes that we both recognize as being too inflexible for a maturing society. (Ha! see how I avoided your favorite word)
But your closing remark was exactly right.
GA
Wyoming, with a population of just over half a million, gets two votes in the Senate, as does California, which has a population of almost 40 million. Rural areas already receive greater representation via the Senate, and the House provides direct, geographic representation for all areas, urban and rural. Since the president is elected to represent the entire country, he/she should be elected by the entire country: one citizen, one vote.
So you have come to the belief that mob rule is the only fair rule? That minority protections are secondary considerations? Are you saying you can accept something that you declare is wrong, as fair - as long as it never happens?
Is that what you are saying Cred?
GA
Yes, the will of the people that helped get President Trump elected is important and worth the fight every inch of the way. The President needs our support and our voices.
In the Deep State there are factions. Just to keep it simple, there are the good guys (the patriots) and the bad guys (the NWO). The patriots are behind Trump 100%, along with 63 million loyal voters (and growing). BTW, there are a lot of good people in the Deep State. ... Then, there is the Shadow Government that Obama put in place, that aren't worthy to be dog catchers.
President Trump cannot be over-thrown. Its just a bunch of noise we are hearing from the resistance crowd so they can make their constituents think they are doing their job so they can maybe get their votes again. Which is laughable! ... And, they are obstructing real progress. Some are scared they will be going to prison I suppose.
Fox News has its deep-pocket shills, but it also has many honest journalists that haven't sold out to wicked rulers in high places.
"relative insignificance"? ... oh yeah, I can see that now!The left would be perfectly happy with a monthly check , a dictator that pleases their image of "leadership " and a promise of more to come to them yearly .
Kind of like any country in Eastern Europe .We are talking about population not a display of hayseeds on some sort of map. Elections are decided by numbers not dayglow geographic maps.
Donald J. Trump won the Electoral College with 304 votes.
Hillary Clinton won 227 votes.
According to NYT -- A landslide.Yep, you won 'this time'. But, next time there will be no overthrow, nothing so rash. This will be just a failure to gather enough votes for a second term. We are working toward that end within all legal parameters to insure this. This is no different from the experience of George HW Bush in 1992. We will get the people to see the 'bill of goods' that they bought into with Donald Trump. And if he keeps screwing up and staying on the radar, he may be out before that. It will be his failure to comply with the laws that will do that, not me.
Take another look at that map ........please , I mean , Its got to be quite painfully clear just how loud the rest of the nation spoke out against you and all your DNC corruption , Clinton , CNN ,Wasserman Shultz , Donna Brazille
remember them ?
"The DNC was broke until I infused it with millions in loans " ,Hilary
Maybe you can buy a few more federal judges to muck up another false charge .
Oh , I don't know , ..........hey ,here's another impeachment charge for you !
Charge Trump with donating his services for nothing to the US presidents official duties.
Looking at Washington DC , Senate , Congress ,liberal courts ---THAT has to be Crime
- ahorsebackposted 7 years ago0
When I look at that map I often think , Why do I debate these losers ?
- ahorsebackposted 7 years ago0
Pure democracy would work fine as long as it serves someones idea of THEIR Ideology , Let them lose just one election and watch the latest designs of a modern electoral college come back to the surface .
For instance the 2016 election surprise to liberals !
Liberals having lost the house ,the senate , congress , governors , legislators over a thousand US seats
across America , Shall we then let the electoral's elect all of them or only popular vote , both ? Why don't we simply FIT the process to support liberals ?
Liberals ;"It all depends on who loses what seat "? - ahorsebackposted 7 years ago0
"Wisdom " is a selective term when it comes to wealth re-distribution . For instance , If we can have what you have I am wise , If we can get you to surrender all your wealth for us , you are wise . If we can get all the rich guy has , all that the taxpayers will be forced to surrender and all that I can beg ,borrow or steal , .......
We are all wise ! - ahorsebackposted 7 years ago0
IF, the EC were to be eliminated or altered , America would become a nation lead by the politics of four cities political ideologies , All liberal , NYC , LA , Chicago , DC.......? Even if it were ten or thirty cities , would that be your solution , And that may be fine with the fringe left but here's a question , If you want a totalitarian leadership , why don't you all go to Moscow , Beijing , Mexico City , and leave America as a working election process ?
You lost the election [ over one thousand dem. seats total ] , Get over it .
You should be developing a ideology that attracts people not repels them .
Related Discussions
- 95
Musk to NYT columnist calling for ‘overthrow’ of the Constitution
by Ken Burgess 3 weeks ago
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2024/09/03 … n-1484487/The Constitution has always been the ultimate goal of the progressive left, a key obstacle that prevents them from “fundamentally transforming” America into something more to their liking and they are now getting bold enough to say it.With...
- 71
Sore Loser GOP wants to now restructure the Electoral College?
by Credence2 11 years ago
excerpt from a recent article"After back-to-back presidential losses, Republicans in key states want to change the rules to make it easier for them to win.From Wisconsin to Pennsylvania, GOP officials who control legislatures in states that supported President Barack Obama are considering...
- 12
Why does the United States have an Electoral College?
by Michele Travis 12 years ago
Why does the United States have an Electoral College?Every 4 years, Americans vote for a president. After the people's votes are counted, one candidate is the winner in each state. Then that candidate wins all the state's 'electors'. The electors from each of the 50 states are counted up like...
- 84
"The Empire Strikes Back", the GOP will rip itself apart?
by Credence2 2 years ago
This is where the analogy ends. For all the things Donald Trump is, he is certainly no Luke Skywalker.There has been increasing rumblings as of late from the GOP mainstream that it has had it with Trump's endless supply of bull$hit.Senator McConnell, otherwise known "affectionately" as...
- 76
Could the USA drop the Electoral College?
by ptosis 11 years ago
"A constitutional amendment, which requires a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress (or a Convention under Article V of the Constitution) and ratification in three-fourths of all fifty states, would be required." - https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petiti … e/GZQtFSPVCheck out...
- 32
Now that the Electoral College has confirmed Trump, can the nation start to heal
by Ralph Schwartz 7 years ago
Now that the Electoral College has confirmed Trump, can the nation start to heal and work together?The Electoral College has confirmed Donald Trump as the next President. Faithless Elector counts were 2 from Trump's totals and surprisingly 4 from Clinton's totals. Even arch-rival John...