SC says no more faithless electors in the EC- what say conservatives?
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi … gK1iPD_BwE
This nice reassurance ruling from the Supreme Court may well give the Electoral College a new lease on life and make the institution less troublesome in my eyes than before.
No more happenstance, if you don't want something to occur, the way to be sure it doesn't is to prohibit it. I am not subject to the rule of "electors" they are there to reflect the will of the majority of their respective states.
Do you conservatives like it? Just curious...Either I'm not getting it, or your link is way behind the times. SCOTUS has already ruled on faithless electors, and declared that they must vote the will of the people.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme … d=71628464I think it is wishful think on the part of Credence.
He enjoyed the recent cases of Roberts sticking it to conservatives in recent controversial 5/4 decisions.
The court is already on shaky grounds. Any deviation from precedence would cause a fire storm especially if it affects the outcome of the next election cycle. The Supreme Court is making itself irrelevant. If all future cases are determined by a 5/4 majority, Trump will make sure the court is packed with conservatives. It is the only way they can avoid the current politicization.Has it occurred to you that conservatives are "part" of the politicalization?
Trump's days are already numbered and he will not have the opportunity to replace another juror, as Ginsberg needs to hang on until Trump is out and a democratic administration can replace him.
But again, were you satisfied about the ruling regarding the Electoral College? Is there anything that a standard conservative would be upset about?the answer is simple. Conservative judges are never about politicization but about the law and the Constitution. Regardless of party, conservatives are true to the constitution while liberal justices try to interpret more meaning to the actual words.
That is what you say, depends from which side of the looking glass you are seeing this all from.
Again, did you like the decision or not?Credence, this equivalency you speak of between the left and the right is not valid. The reason is very simple. The left is not abiding by the Constitution and the intent of the Founding fathers. They are the ones that treat it as a "living document" and open to all sorts of interpretations...
The conservative view is the document is written in plain English so that average citizens could comprehend it. It was not written in legal jargon that only a lawyer could understand and interpret.
To us, a living document takes on a totally different meaning. It means it can be modified with amendments, not that you can change what the word means...
I hope you see the difference.That is still just your opinion, Jack.
You never did answer me about the EC court decision, as pure as a conservative that you are, did not the decision bother you in some way?I believe the current court is not functioning. One change I would make, if I was in charge, is to adopt a 6/3 minimum rule to Supreme court decisions.
That is to say all decisions must be 6/3 or higher. A 5/4 decision is too close to call and we cannot have a country that makes important decisions based on a 1 vote majority appointed by political process.
These judges are appointed for life and should understand the gravity of their rulings and not allow their politics to get in the way of their decision.
When Earl Warren, liberal Chief Justice in 1954 reversed Plessy vs Ferguson from 1896, was that "legislating from the bench. Where did you think the rulings for the Miranda notices, addressing the right of the accused come from?
There is a role for both conservative and liberal oriented justices on the Court. If I let conservatives control we be still be referencing whale bone corsets, powdered wigs and knickerbockers.
So, no, I don't see the difference.
Because you are a rightwing oriented person, you are going to come in against every decision that YOU think is over the top. Well, I support the liberal jurists as a counterbalance to a stolid sclorotic right wing. Your view of inadequate is not universally held.No, I am against any supreme court decision that is wrong on the side of Constitutionality. It is their job and they are failing to do their job.
We can disagree on policy but ultimately, the policies and laws has to pass the Constitution as intended. Ever so often, we have a change in public sentiment and in those cases, we have an amendment process which allow for changes to the Constitution.
It really is that simple.
We now have some justices that think they are above the law. They can just change the meaning of a word or rule based on the intent of a law rather than the language of the law.
Where does this end?
At least I know that as a conservative you take no issue with the unanimous decision.
Well, because I believe in the purpose and benefit of the EC, it is grudgingly that I say I don't have a problem with the Court ruling.
GAIt seems to me that the original intent of the EC was to give the power of election to a few of the "intelligencia", or at least some of those writers felt that way.
If so, the purpose was NOT what we assume and the court is changing that meaning. While I support the decision, as being in line with my own feelings of intent, it may not have been the intent of the writers.Wilderness, your decision to support the Court Ruling is wise but why is GA unhappy? The decision gives rmany of us fewer reasons to be suspicious of the Electoral College.
Do you really think that the intelligentsia should have final say over our elections?
That is contrary to the very concept of Democracy from my progressive liberal position. And my distrust of elitists that are given power not received from the masses is quite strong.
Somewhere in the Conservative mindset is this fear of popular sovereignty and I was trying to get Jack to admit to as much, but he was not forthcoming. Thanks to you both for allowing me to gather evidence to support my hypothesis."Do you really think that the intelligentsia should have final say over our elections?"
I absolutely do not, and thought I made it plain I liked the decision.
But at the same time, if (IF) I'm right and that was the original intent (to override the people's choice by those "smarter" about such things) then the court is once more making law from the bench and clearly violated the intent of the constitution in so doing. This is a major problem I see with SCOTUS (and courts all over the land) - they don't make decisions based on law, but on their private political beliefs.That a reasonable assumption, but the states do get to control the electors and the process. Elitism is just another 18th century idea whose time has passed. letting this intelligentsia go. Perhaps a more formal change thru constitutional amendment would make dissenters that complain about "original intent" happy?
Credence, the reason I chose to avoid your question is that I am of the opinion the current Supreme Court is broken. I have no confidence in them after the botched and tortured decisions made over the past few years.
The only solution is to replace some of the liberal justices and John Roberts.You are right about the Framers' fear of popular sovereignty, and that was the primary reason for the EC, (closely tied with the demands of the less populated states).
Contrary to "admitting" that, it should be openly acknowledged.
ps. I am not unhappy with the Court decision.
GA"That is contrary to the very concept of Democracy from my progressive liberal position."
I believe this is a good thing since we don't have a democracy. We live in a representative republic. The Electoral College was designed to avoid the Tyranny of the Majority.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_o … 0minority.
I believe the ruling is the right thing.you do know if the Democrats have their way, they would get rid of the electoral college all together. After hillary lost in 2016, they made a big fuss over the fact she won by 4 million popular vote.
I agree with you. If Democrats have their way we'd use the Venezuelan/Cuban economic model.
They'd think it was a good thing until they had no money and no hope of getting any. I should write about my experiences of visiting the Ukraine back in the 1970s when it was controlled by communist Russia. Trust me...it was an eye opener.
I'm sure if you deducted the illegals voting as well as dead people and felons, the number would have been much lower. This is the Democrat way.
I needed to call you out on this, GA.
"Grudgingly" ?
Virtual every voice including a unanimous Surpeme Court decision supported this clarification, down to and including the notorious conservative, Clearance Thomas.
What was your problem with it as even the conservative voices on this forum supported it?
Was it because that it may not have reflected the original intent of the founders?
You talk about true conservatives verses "nostalgists". Resistance to the this ruling seems only an attitude by nostalgists, pining for the past for its own sake, oblivious to changing times.
You really would allow an handful of "wise guys" to independently pull the emergency brake on the train representing the democratic process? Is that what lies behind your misgivings about the decision?
When I look at your adverse attitude regarding the very mention of Trimp's name when he figures prominently in virtually every issue of the day in some manner, I question the extent of what appears to be an authoritarian streak on your part.
Authoritarian is as far from Blue, as the left hand is from the right.Well hell Cred, if I have to go to the woodshed it should at least be for a good reason.
I am not sure my comment; "Well, because I believe in the purpose and benefit of the EC, it is grudgingly that I say I don't have a problem with the Court ruling." warrants the trip.
The bottom line was that I said; "I say I don't have a problem with the Court ruling."
The grudgingly" part was also explained; ". . . because I believe in the purpose and benefit of the EC . . ."
I didn't resist this change Cred, I accepted it. Of course, my "grudgingly" certainly indicated I wasn't jumping up and down and clapping, but it also indicated I accepted the ruling as correct.
As for your "Resistance to this ruling seems only an attitude by nostalgists . . .", I agree, if your "resistance" is synonymous with refusal. However, I didn't resist or refuse, I accepted the change—the position of a true Conservative.
As a last point to clarify, I am not "adverse" to the mention of Trump's name, or discussions about him, or anything related to him. What I am averse to is the insertion of his name into discussions not relevant to him or his actions.
For instance; I could start a conversation about a horse that had a big ass, and you would pop in with, "Trump has a big ass too." Even if you were right, it has nothing to do with the conversation about the horse.
*I thought about including a jokingly sarcastic "Now sit down and do as I say" response to your "Authoritarian" jab, but decided not to because I don't do sarcasm well. ;-)
GAI guess that I have to ask why you are not "jumping up and down", as it seems to be the case across all spectrums of the ideological mix?
What is the source of your misgivings expressed as "grudgingly"?You are certainly consistent Cred—you never make it easy. ;-)
I am not sure of your first question, but maybe my answer to the last one will also answer the first.
I said "grudgingly" because I believe the modern "electors" laws have already corrupted the original intent of this aspect of the electoral college and bring us closer to a system of pure democracy. I am still as against that now as our Framers were then.
I accept the change because those modern circumstances, (state laws requiring a certain obligation), and the development of our society in terms of knowledge and numbers, have already negated the original purpose, so I can accept the change as appropriate.
My bottom line for grudging acceptance was my resistance to another step towards pure democracy. which, (as I think recent protest's riots show), is still nothing less than mob rule.
GAYeah, I can be difficult at times, when I want to get to the bottom of it.
So, you are saying that to avoid "pure democracy" a handful of men should have the prerogative to overrule the wishes of the mass majority of voters? You are more comfortable allowing these men free rein to act independently, such is the true nature of your remorse?
I know that you have accepted the ruling, but it is interesting to note that you have more confidence in the caprice of "wise guys" to act independently over the wishes of the people. How are these people qualified to hold such power? It does tell me a little about you as I could never consider having any remorse about this ruling from any position.Read Cred. Read what I say. It is usually different from the preconceived response you expect and allow to cloud your perception.
I said:
"I said "grudgingly" because I believe the modern "electors" laws have already corrupted the original intent of this aspect of the electoral college and bring us closer to a system of pure democracy. I am still as against that now as our Framers were then.
I accept the change because those modern circumstances, (state laws requiring a certain obligation), and the development of our society in terms of knowledge and numbers, have already negated the original purpose, so I can accept the change as appropriate."
How did you get that;
". . . to avoid "pure democracy" a handful of men should have the prerogative to overrule the wishes of the mass majority of voters?"
and ". . . interesting to note that you have more confidence in the caprice of "wise guys" to act independently over the wishes of the people.", from my statement?
GA"I said "grudgingly" because I believe the modern "electors" laws have already corrupted the original intent of this aspect of the electoral college and bring us closer to a system of pure democracy. I am still as against that now as our Framers were then"
( I am repeating what you have basically said in this paragraph)
Don't mean to put you on the spot, GA, so you DO make it clear that if you had your preference you would distrust Democracy and are comfortable with the original intent where electors were allowed to be independent of reflecting the vote of the majority of the state. You don't like the idea of the "original intent" being corrupted?
The fact that the Electoral College exists at all is a compromise to those that fear the power and authority of the direct vote, and more important to me, giving the smaller states a reason to participate. No way would I allow these men(electors) to choose independently, why should I trust the will of a handful over the will of the many?
Allowing a handful of men the ability overrule many is more than not trusting the Democratic process, its borders on Oligarchy.Preventing "The Tyranny of the Majority"
“The Electoral College is a very carefully considered structure the Framers of the Constitution set up to balance the competing interests of large and small states,” writes Hans von Spakovsky, a former member of the Federal Election Commission. “It prevents candidates from wining an election by focusing only on high-population urban centers (the big cities), ignoring smaller states and the more rural areas of the country — the places that progressives and media elites consider flyover country.”
Most people who watch the election returns know that a candidate must secure 270 electoral votes to win. That’s because there are 538 votes altogether. As the website for the National Archives notes, “Your state’s entitled allotment of electors equals the number of members in its Congressional delegation: one for each member in the House of Representatives plus two for your Senators.”
https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/c … e-majorityYes, I absolutely distrust pure democracy. And you should too. Pure democracy offers no protections for minorities—neither ethnic, cultural, nor dissenting minorities.
Many scoff at the warning about 'bread and circuses', (a nod to Wilderness), but that is exactly the probable result of pure democratic rule—the majority can decide anything they want, regardless of effect or consequence.
And you cannot rebut that with the claim of Constitutional or judicial protections. Pure democratic rule could just as easily discard those as the current rioters have discarded the rule of law—and gotten away with it.
Pure democracy is mob rule Cred.
I recall a lot of references to the primary Framers' exhaustive readings concerning different forms of government, going all the way back to ancient Greece, and history's examples show the dangers and failures of pure democratic governments.
I surely haven't studied the history of governments as Madison or Adams or Jefferson did, but I have followed enough of their hints of history's troubling examples to be confident in their opinions.
Now, about this "Oligarchy" thought.. . I know I am opening a door, but . ..
At the time of our founding, I think the ignorance of our citizens regarding national representative choices, (or even their understanding of what our new government was intended to be), combined with a lack of general information, (a letter could take weeks and months to get delivered, a newspaper could, (and did), present a completely false narrative and it could be weeks or months before the public could know it was a false narrative), that "handful" of intelligent men acting as a buffer wasn't such a bad idea.
Its intention was not to thwart the public will but to protect it from shenanigans and demagoguery. Of course, we still have shenanigans and demagoguery but at least as our nation grew and our communications abilities grew, we reached a point where the citizens could find out they had been fooled before it was too late, or, at the least, that they were being foolish in their choice even if they stuck with it.
That is the primary reason I can accept this court decision. I think our national abilities have made it unneeded. I also think your "oligarchy" and "handful of men" argument against this part of the EC is outdated and unsupportable. It hasn't been a real possibility since the first state passed electors laws mandating how they must vote.
I bet you are sorry you asked now. ;-)
GAThis is very revealing, GA.
What are the qualifications of 535 electors that they can subvert the will of the majority?
I would rather accede to the will of majority wishes of my fellow citizens then be ruled by the caprice of 535 men and women.
The times are different from the reality in the 18th century. People today have access to information and should be trusted to govern themselves.
The only way to make sure that something cannot even be a possibility is to forbid it, which is what the court has done.
Why am I going believe that these "noble and wise" electors do not have agendas of their own, who says they are free of their own form of demagoguery, corruption, seeking their own interests, contrary to our voices.
No, GA, that "bread and circuses" analogy is just an excuse to allow entrenched interests to maintain power over us all while being virtually minuscule in number.
And if I may be frank, I think that it reflects an underlying fear and a "failsafe" for the changes in the composition of electorate anticipated in the coming years. It won't work.
Intelligent, just means wedded to the status quo and protecting the interests of the wealthy and powerful, that hasn't changed since the founding of the republic.
I can understand why in the 18th century, the founding fathers may have had those fears. But no one should be advocating these ideas and values today.
I am satisfied with the courts as adaquate protection for minority rights before allowing a handful of unelected people whose true motives are unknown to be trusted to run it all.
What you are speaking of certainly is not a Blue attitude and it is not even "purple".And after all the information provided to you, and available to your own research, what "you are speaking" is the repetitive phrases of a broken record.
I gave it a good effort Cred, but I can see you are stuck on a position of ideological preference, (don't let facts or reality get in the way). If you ever want to discuss the specifics, rather than an emotionjal perception we can have another go at it.
Also, regardless of the color you want to assign to my explanation, I challenge you to provide an equally supported "Blue" refutation.
Emotion and reason Cred. It is a good thing to know which one should drive your decisions and positions.
GAWhat facts, GA? I have carefully listened to your explanations and they seem to lead in one direction. You are as emotional in your distrust of the masses as I am in my distrust of rule by the few.
We will have to agree to disagree, profoundly by the way......I will have to give your "You are as emotional in your distrust . . . " some thought Cred.
. . . . . . . . . . . .
Okay, Nope, I don't think my distrust of pure democracy is emotionally driven. It is very firmly held, maybe even passionately so, but it is derived from the reality of history's examples, the thoughts of great minds I respect, and what I think I know of human behavior.
Of course, my strongest resistance is to pure democracy on a national level, which is the level of the EC and our discussion. I can grudgingly accept it on a local or state level, (because it is fairly easy to move to another town, city, or state, but not so easy to move to another nation), but even then I think it is a bad idea.
I went looking for some modern examples and stumbled across what I think is a good one; California's 2008 Proposition 8.
California Proposition 8, the "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry" Initiative (2008)
In this case, California's "pure democracy" legislative process of citizens' ballot initiatives allowed a majority to take away the right of a minority.
As for their Constitutional and Judicial protections from such tyranny, this minority had no protection. California's Constitution supported the initiative as did their Judicial branch—the California Supreme Court.
Would you support such legislative power in the hands of a majority for issues that affected the diverse citizenry of a nation?
If you would support that, then yes, our difference in prospectives is profound.
GAYou never cease to be a challenge, GA.
I get to speak on fundamental ideas and principles that I hold dear.
For me, it is simply a matter of fairness. Ten people in a room, with winner takes all and we presume that each one is equal. Seven out of ten chose the Democrat, and consequently the other three relent in the fact that the majority in the room made the choice for us all. It works because we are all equal, therefore each has a right to an equal say. Is that not how we resolve such questions in everyday life?
But, instead, how fair is it that one man playing the role of God or father says it does not matter what the rest of you want, my individual will is paramount and supersedes the wishes of you, the other 9, so we select the Republican instead. Who is this guy and what is his claim to this authority?
The only place amenable to hierarchies like that are in families and employment. And even then, the one person whose choice overrules the others is saddled with the responsibility of the outcome in exchange for that authority. The fellow in my example, not so much. That is how I think about rogue electors that can be free to operate as they will while circumventing the collective will of millions.
Yes, I see where the legislative process and the electorate can ride the passions of the moment in your example regarding Proposition 8, but the courts did provide the correction. They, being appointed for the specific purpose of interpreting the Constitutions position relative to the issues at hand. It was the primary assist we used to change entrenched customs and habits in the South during the Civil Rights Era. It allowed me to believe that unjust situations did not have to remain forever intractable to change or correction.
Atticus Finch said that the courts are the "great levelors".
The courts are the bulwark against excesses, requiring us all to operate according to the "rule book". I give the power to overrule the majority to these jurists over unaccountable electors.
Why would you believe that a failsafe of electors would really have the knowledge or inclination to set things straight, in your example. If we did things per your preference, what would we gain?
Democracy is not perfect, but I don't see a better solution except those that lead us down a dark path, and in an undesirable direction.Let me start from the last and move backwards . . .
And I am also addressing this issue from a basic and fundamental aspect. Specific situations will always add their own situational exceptions that require additional considerations, but, fundamentally speaking . . .
I have not defended the "faithless electors" aspect of the EC. I simply examined the reasoning for its inclusion and stated my acceptance that it is no longer a valid concept. So let's put that one to bed and continue with the pure democracy tangent of our discussion.
You say the court's righted the wrong, and you are right, because the California courts that supported it were not the final authority, but if we were addressing this same issue on a national level they would have been, and the minority's Rights would have been trampled by the rule of the mob, aka pure democracy. I really don't see how you can address this particular example and still support the concept of pure democracy. It is a real-world example of the fallacy of pure democracy at its worst.
Remember bud, as important and essential as our judicial system is, it is not infallible or immune to pure democratic influences as it should be. Dred Scott is the proof of that, just as California's Supreme Court upholding Proposition 8 was. Is it really too much of a stretch for you to see an occurrence of a similar situation in our national SCOTUS?
But, the easiest target you present is your first example; "Ten people in a room. . . "
With just a little modification let's make an analogy. 10 animals in a room deciding what's for dinner. 7 wolves and 3 sheep. Would you still be comfortable with the majority's choice? Do you think the 3 sheep would just acquiesce and say "Oh well, it's the majority's choice, so okay." Do you still see this as an example of fairness? (ps. you are one of the 3 sheep)
However, you are right that democracy can be a messy process, sort of like loving sausage until you visit the sausage factory.
GAAlright, let's put the EC thing aside.
The "system" we have is far from perfect and even though I constantly bitch about its shortcomings, the component parts of the machinery are still quite remarkable.
Let's look at the Dred Scott decision of 1857. I have to take myself away from my 21st century sensibilities and return to the thoughts of people and society in the mid 19th century. Chief Justice Taney, as a proslavery southerner, was in on the majority opinion saying that blacks basically were not citizens and had no rights that anyone was obliged to regard.
Well, when you think about slavery being justified for an entire race of people, such a conclusion can reasonably be expected. In reality, it would be difficult to say anything else. But within a span of around ten years Taney and his ruling were made completely irrelevant.
I could say the same about Plessy vs Ferguson (separate but equal).These were just men reflecting the attitudes and values of their times. We all had to wait half a century and over many lower court rulings to get the Supreme Court to finally come to the conclusion that separate was inherently unequal. The pressure points were found within several aspects of the civil rights struggle, but they were moving in the right direction.
There is always a danger as the courts are not infallible, but over the last 200 years, I could give them a B grade. There would have not been the impetus to move society in any differing directions without it.
As for the wolves and sheep, it has been determined by the Supreme Court that devouring sheep is unconstitutional and unlawful regardless of the quantities of wolves relative to the sheep. It is simply not a concept that is open to control by a majority.
That is all that we really have.....
In my view, the Supreme Court decision makes perfect common sense. The ruling protects the people believe that their votes count in the presidential election, and that’s what the Supreme Court clearly reaffirmed,
I am very satisfied with the decision.This should please you... You are aware that the party that emerged to champion Hamilton's views of the EC was the Federalist party. Its opponents, at first called Anti-Federalists, drew together into a Jeffersonian party; first called the Republicans and later the Democratic-Republicans, they eventually became known as today's Democratic party.
Hamilton's understanding of the Electoral College
Federalist No. 68 is the continuation of Alexander Hamilton's analysis of the presidency, in this case concerning the method of electing the president. Hamilton argues the advantages of the indirect electoral process described in Article II Section 1 of the Constitution, although in the case of a tied vote in the Electoral College, the House of Representatives was to make the choice.
Hamilton viewed the system as superior to a direct popular election. First, he recognized, the "sense of the people should operate in the choice", and would through the election of the electors to the Electoral College.
I guess over the years the Democratic party has found the EC inconvenient, just did not suit their narrative as the country became larger and more populated.
I am very satisfied with the SC decision. I feel The Constitution has served us well.
My understanding of the EC was that it had three purposes; to avoid the dangers of a pure democratic vote, to offer less populated states a smidgeon of extra voice, and to avoid the popular effects of a demagogue.
As I see it, prohibiting faithless electors only affects the third, (and to me the least important now), reason for its creation.
As for your "intelligensia" thought, I think you might be right. The Framers might have been a bit elitist. But considering the times and circumstances that might not have been such a bad thing.
GA. . . and when the court is expanded and packed with 13, 17, or 21 judges. (shades of FDR). and eating sheep is no longer unconstitutional? Or when the "majority" amends the Constitution to allow sheep eating? Would you still be fine with majority rule?
Can you recall no historical instances when the passions of the moment, (pure democracy/mob rule), were thankfully tempered by reason and time before any unrecoverable damage was done?
I recall that the "majority" opinion was against the U.S. entering WWII, or even assisting Britain. Where do you think we would be now if FDR had not had the wisdom to 'work around' that majority opinion and save Britain and defeat the Germans?
The protections you trust now could easily be discarded by majority vote tomorrow Cred. California's Prop 8 is modern, (only 12 years ago), proof of that. That is the danger of pure democracy.
I think your comment;"These were just men reflecting the attitudes and values of their times." about Plessy vs Ferguson further makes my point—"values of the times" is what pure democracy is all about. What should be the determining power is reason and the values of our tommorrows.
However, I completely agree with your opening statement, and it makes me wonder, with such an attitude, why you are such an advocate of majority rule at a national level. The dangers are obvious and examples of them are clear to see.
Help me out with an example where the passion of the moment, (pure democracy/mob rule), was the right and just choice?
GAI thought that while the President can select his choice of jurors, the Senate has to confirm him or her. That is a check and balance right there.
But a better question would be this, without destroying democracy in its entirety, what would be your solution if you could make the change? I support majority rule on a national level because every alternative that I could imagine would be a move away from democracy, pure or otherwise.
What other perspective can one have than "the values of our times"? Who could have the foresight in 1896 to see the error in the Plessy ruling? What mere mortal is really equipped and can be trusted with foresight and understanding ahead and beyond his peers?
I am satisfied with the status quo as the best compromise between one extreme over the other.
What would you do? Tell me what would be better and why....."I thought that while the President can select his choice of jurors, the Senate has to confirm him or her. That is a check and balance right there."
And when all three legislative arms are controlled by one party, aka majority rule, your "checks and balances" could be weakened to the point of uselessness. However, that may not be a great example because you are not talking a pure democracy for the citizens. This example is a majority of our elected representatives, which I am fine with.
What would I do, or change? Nothing. I think our form of representative democracy is the best choice discovered so far.
Here is the way I see it: Any society of citizens should be able to make any just laws they want to govern their society. By "just laws" I mean laws that are fair to all. Of course, this thought is qualified by scale. From camp ground-size groups to small towns, and even to state levels, it is not hard to move if one doesn't like the rules of that society.
So until a societal group gets too large and reality requires representatives instead of individual voices I can accept pure democratic rule because there will always be a higher authority to guard against the tyranny of the majority.
But when that scale reaches a national level—not so easy for most to change nations, and there is no superior authority to rule on unjust laws, then I do not support pure democratic rule.
Plus, since this conversation is generally about the election of our national leader—our president, a popular vote, (pure democracy), is contrary to the structure of our nation and our government. You can't just ignore the fact that we are a federation of states, and it is the states that elect their national leader. The people's voice and choice is heard through the instrument of their state.
Simple, right?
GAYes, but that "total control" moves regularly between the two political parties, the component representatives as such are determined by the electorate.
As I said, I have no problem with representatives (status quo) in this regard as long as they ultimately have to answer to the electorate and not some vague appointing authority. For obvious reasons, I exclude the courts from that requirement.
Allowing sheep to be devoured by wolves despite their number is an unjust law anywhere. A national involvement is necessary to make sure, that as sheep, we should be able to live anywhere in safety and not have to be compelled to move because of quirky local ordinances that are in conflict with federal law or protection established and applicable to all.
The states do elect the national leader but respect comes first and foremost to those that consent to be governed, the electorate. The electors in the EC as a result are to be nothing more than a simple mathematical representation of their respective states popular vote tally.
The people's voice and choices are REPRESENTED, not just "heard" through the instruments of their respective states. If they are not being properly represented, the people must always have the option to acquire new voices and choices that are more responsive to their concerns.
And again, I reiterate that I have no problem with the machinery of the current system as it is.
Related Discussions
- 37
The case why I am compelled to vote against the GOP/Conservatives
by Credence2 3 years ago
A great article that speaks for me and my opinion regarding the aforementioned topic in the Atlantic. How much of it concurs with your own?https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi … te/616808/Patience, it could be seen as a long read.Your thoughts, please.
- 311
The Disatorous Ramifications of the Deadly Reversal of Roe vs Wade.
by Scott Belford 2 months ago
The Conservatives on the Supreme Court stuck a knife in the back of all Americans with their decision to ignore stare decises and overturn Roe. Besides stripping women of a fundemental right to control their own body (now, in some states, a 13-year old rape victim with be FORCED to carry the...
- 23
Conservatives, how do you feel about Chief Justice Roberts siding in favor of up
by Mary's Crumbs 11 years ago
Conservatives, how do you feel about Chief Justice Roberts siding in favor of upholding ObamaCare?In what can only be characterized as a victory for the Obama administration, the Supreme Court handed down a 5-4 decision which basically upholds the The Affordable Care Act. Chief Justice...
- 55
Is Trump Now Knocking On The Door Of The Supreme Court...
by Sharlee 2 years ago
Is Trump finally on his way to the Supreme Court with his allegations of voter irregularities and fraud? It would appear we will soon know."By Tom Hals(Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Friday rejected a request by U.S. President Donald Trump's campaign to block President-elect Joe...
- 23
Hear this Conservatives: I have changed my mind about the EC
by Credence2 4 years ago
https://time.com/5658293/electoral-coll … urt-rules/No way am I going to allow for any sort of Electoral College where members can explicitely cast votes irregardless of the popular vote tally within their states.Why do I want a handful of fat bloated oligarchs deciding the outcome of...
- 48
What Does SC Justice Anthony Kennedy's Retirement Mean for America?
by Scott Belford 5 years ago
Clearly, Donald Trump will nominate the most extreme conservative he can find to replace Kennedy and Sen Mitch McConnell will do everything he can to get him appointed.At stake, of course, is Kennedy's own legacy. I suspect he is quite aware that the important decisions he sided with the...