When Ted Cruz is appointed to the SC
- Thread starter MegaPoke
- Start date
Because the will of a wider cross section or coalition of peoples from across the nation is more representative and increases the likelihood of more equitable treatment than if it was based upon a simple majority of people, wherein a small number of populous places could dominate the election process.
Are you familiar with the Federalist Papers? Just curious.
If the states were doing the voting, the will of the state would be above the will of the people. But in reality, it is the people within the state that do the voting and the electoral votes go to the candidate chosen by the people of each state.
They certainly could carve out districts, but the system is setup up to disincentive carving out districts. It either harms the majority party in the state or dilutes the state's national power.
Efficiency in allocation and efficacy of voter energizing are certainly variables.
I bet if Clinton had been asking the right questions and not leaning on baked in assumptions of a monolithic blue wall, she would have spent more time in WI, PA, and MI.
But their concerns aren't A = A with what the Hillary campaign presumed. While CA, NY, FL etc have dissimilar issues to be addressed.
The EC creates a situation where accurately hearing issues (joined with signalling a palatable solution) is even more important than actual turnout.
WI, MI, and PA voters created a teachable moment for many. And federal government resource allocation won't be more inclined to reward CA for having more total voters.
The electoral college does not limit the power of the central government.
Explain this to me. It seems are you putting places above people here. How is that in anyway superior?
More than 50% of the total population resides in the 10 most populous states. There are 40 other states. This shouldn't be difficult to comprehend.
California has led the way on awarding its electoral votes to the national popular vote winner contingent upon states with a 270 electoral votes agreeing to a similar measure. The leadership thus far has failed.
Why are we striving to make the widest geography happy rather than the largest number of people?
That is in no way a check on federal power. It just changes which people have the most power to choose who exercises federal power.
You people are so affraid of the tyranny of the majority that you don't realize you are advocating for the tyranny of the minority.
If that's your actual answer then you know the next question is, "Why don't we just change our name to America, and ditch the electoral college."
Well, the clear answer is that it would require an amendment to the Constitution. There is a process for doing that, and I suppose there is some possibility that it might happen.
Looks like we have 2 stooges (@syskatine and @07pilt ). Where's the third @CowboyUp for the ultimate trifecta??
It absolutely is. It's just more to difficult to see it now because the federal government has now usurped so much of the power that it wasn't originally designed to hold. Giving the power over to a pure democracy would favor those who are clearly more disposed to s stronger and ever more powerful federal government/welfare state.
But the Senate structure also clearly violates the "one man, one vote principal" which you apparently advocate in favor of.
Another thing about electing the President via direct popular vote: You're imagining it in light of traditional elections where there are 2 main candidates and perhaps 1-2 more "3rd party" candidates. Do away with the electoral college and regional candidates will spring up in the major population areas and gain access to the ballot, which would lead to even less of an effort to construct a coalition that addresses concerns across a number of states/regions.
This appears to be the circular toddler argument pilt. Why? But why? But why?
This is the Daddy Medic response. Because that's what the Constitution says son. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the country. Go read a book.
PS, if you're voting by who makes you happy, you're very likely doing it wrong.
I'll go a step further saying that we should repeal the 17th amendment allowing the direct election of Senators and revert back to having the state legislatures appoint them.
That's certainly one of the checks against the strong central government that is now missing.
Isn't it funny that this is an issue after Trump wiped his ass with Hillary.
And it's worked pretty damned well for for a pretty damned long time.
I would propose that those advocating a change in a system should attempt to make a convincing argument on why it should be changed. In other words, turn Pilt's question around and convince us that people should be the sovereign unit in choosing a president instead of the states.
I confess to not being able to think of any act of governing in the United States of America that is enacted or selected by the mass of the people as opposed to the state as the sovereign unit. What's so special about the President that we won't to change it now?
I understand that "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" may be an old fashioned and conservative (not speaking to political factions with the term here) notion...in my opinion though, it's still pretty good advice.
Well, we haven't seen any compelling argument as to why it isn't either....no argument really...just a demand or questioning of the status quo.
Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I believe the government was set up with the Executive Branch having the power to enforce the laws of the Union. The Senate represents the States and the House represents the people. The Judicial Branch evaluates laws in regards to legality in accordance to the Constitution.
It seems these days people think that the President has the power to make and evaluate laws, which are actually powers designated by the Constitution to the Legislative and Judicial Branches respectively. Based on the debates of the Founders, it is more than apparent that each state was to be represented by the whole of its people in selection of the President to ensure no corrupt or central source of power could alter the election.
The Founders feared the emotional variability of direct democracy as well as the rule of an elite or group of elites unresponsive to the will of the people (monarchy). In addition to the protection of individual rights and majority rule, the Founders attempted to create a central government that would keep most of the policy making power in the hands of the state and local governments. The US presidential election system was designed to empower the states as sovereign entities, not just empower the American people as an undifferentiated whole, the idea being that the Executive Branch had only the powers provided by the Constitution.
But then again, maybe I'm just old school. What did those old farts that hsd life so easy know about what they did and didn't want in a federal government anyhow.
You know the answer to that. You also know that had Hillary won the contest she was competing in (270 electoral college votes) there would be no discussion of it.
I don't remember Algore voters being such crybaby bitches, and he barely lost to a neocon chimp.
Fair enough.
1. It aint broke? MAGA? "Again?" I don't buy it, but a guy just got elected on the premise that things are bad. So why isn't it intellectually honest to proceed on that basis?
2. "What's so special.... change it now?" Because the majority's will is being denied. Not a majority-requested offense against some inviolate republican liberty -- the will in the voting booth. I appreciate the burden of advocating change from the status quo, but arguing against denying a majority vote is a proposition that should meet a burden, imo.. Redefining what constitutes a "majority" doesn't honestly address the fact that a majority of U.S. citizens are told the minority wins because of where they live. A vote of a California U.S. citizen should carry the same weight as a Wisconsin citizen's vote. The destiny of the republic should be determined by collective wisdom and not by geographical coincidence.
3. Why people should be the unit that elects POTUSes instead of states: Because we should minimize the authority of government and maximize the role of the individual. Also, the constitution isn't sacred. It was deeply flawed. I don't want to trigger another debate over the same issue, but in regard to the founding fathers: So? They're dead, they endorsed slavery and mysogyny and had very primitive ideas about lots fo things. It's always tempting to lionize our forefathers. Eh.
4. The biggest policy in favor of straight per capita voting is because we need to foment revolution at the ballot box. When the majority is denied their revolution, that's not a good thing for a variety of reasons. Majority rule is in itself a virtue.
I am reading this correctly? Determining the presidency by the popular vote increases federal power and the welfare state, because those things are popular?
So we can count on you to support the notion that one legal US citizen equals only one vote, requiring each actual voter to produce proof that they are in fact legally entitled to vote. If not, Constitution beeyotch. Those old dudes were definitely smarter than you liberals.
You can have run offs and require a majority of the popular vote to win.
