Just as every Christmas brings the same tired argument over nativity scenes, Christmas trees and Santa Claus, every election cycle brings forth a fresh attempt to ignore the Constitutional establishment of the Electoral College, and allow the city centers to run roughshod over rural Americans. The 2012 election is no different, but it does bring a fresh approach to the age old problem of a “popular vote” Presidential election… by having the state legislators pass a law, obligating their EC votes to the national popular vote winners.
Under this scheme, state legislatures would pass legislation that would bind them to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote—even if the candidate that got the most votes nationally did not carry that individual state. In short, this would be a de facto popular vote for President—and done without amending the Constitution.
So far, seven states and the District of Columbia (with a combined 77 electoral votes) have enacted laws that do precisely this. Should similar laws be enacted in states with an additional 193 electoral votes, de facto popular election of the President will be achieved.
The California legislature, firmly in Democratic hands, was poised to pass similar legislation this week, but with opponents raising fierce objections, the vote was delayed. In Delaware, newly elected state GOP Chairman John Sigler told us, “Liberal Democrats in the state legislature have offered HB 55, and all the Republicans are against it. Republicans here are strongly opposed because it would repeal the Electoral College by implication. And in basically writing off many states, rural areas, and people, it would lead to rule by tyranny.”
As of the end of April 2011, Vermont – Bernie Sanders territory – became the eighth voting arena to enact such legislation. The others are New Jersey, Maryland, Massachussetts, Illinois, Hawaii, Washington State and Washington DC.
This is a completely different concept than the more common winner-takes-all method used by 48 states. In this case, a state’s vote is cast per their electors, but can be changed by national popular vote after the fact. Who in the world could think that a popularity contest should be a state’s deciding factor? And what state legislator thinks this is appropriate representation for his/her constituents?
This back door movement traces it’s roots back to the Al Gore disgruntled in 2001. The Wikipedia history of the “National Popular Vote Interstate Compact” cites the 2006 created non-profit to advocate for this “compact” hit the ground running, and had it introduced into 42 state legislative sessions by 2007. To date, only 8 of them have been enacted into law, translating to 77 guaranteed “popular vote” electoral votes for a US President.
All of those states with this passage are strongly leaning liberal/progressives states by tradition. What becomes more dangerous is if swing states manage to join this “compact” during a favorable political climate with their legislative make up.
Various lawsuits have been mounted… pro and con… on the concept of EC vs it’s reflection of a popular vote. In 2008, Washington DC Green Party member, Asa Gordon, mounted a legal challenge, which met the same fate as many legal arguments for more lofty causes… dismissed for lack of standing. Gordon’s lawsuit, targeting then Veep, Dick Cheney, was in fear of Cheney’s power, presiding over the Senate, and how his power would affect certification of the 2008 election results.
Gordon’s lawsuit is the favored legal template for progressives, seeking to reform the EC into a popular vote movement. Apparently, when the cause is near and dear to a progressive’s heart, they see a “lack of standing” – or a non ruling on the merits – as a bonus. Other cases with dismissals for the same standing reason, and with less popular causes, have not enjoyed the dismissal’s elevation in stature.
But the ruling on Gordon v. Cheney, now Gordon v. Biden, provides a blueprint for future progressive civil actions to reform the Electoral College to reflect the popular vote in presidential elections.
“I am very pleased with the ruling, but unsatisfied to the extent that I plan to appeal what I deem to be the court’s error to deny me personal standing,” said Asa Gordon. “The civil action was not only motivated by my personal standing as an injured voter, but the main objective was to determine the legal viability of the 14th Amendment’s Mal-Apportionment Penalty clause pleaded before the court that would democratize the Electoral College. The court granted the dismissal order predicated on a memorandum opinion that did not reject the constitutional arguments I pleaded before the court.”
The District Court, citing case law precedents, ruled that “a pro se plaintiff… cannot adequately represent the interests of other class members.” The court granted the dismissal motion, stating: “Because Gordon’s alleged injury is not ‘fairly traceable’ to the Vice President’s actions, which in fact are purely ministerial, but rather is attributable to the actions of third-party states and state officials, he fails to satisfy the causation element of standing. Therefore, he is unable to prosecute this action.”
What a bonus…. if they can talk the majority of high EC vote states into passing similar “national popular vote changes the state EC votes” legislation, there is no need to “reform” the Constitutional system set down by our Founding Fathers. They’ve found the back door…
As long as there are active progressives in our nation, bent on changing the Founders “Republic” to their desired “Democracy”, the push for voter and state inequity will continue. A quest that I’ve always found ironic. A liberal/progressive community is so all fired for “democracy” in our republic, but don’t recognize the overt lack of “democracy” when the few states with high population control political power over all 50 states. i.e. just how “democratic” is it for 5-8 states to dictate to 50?
But the same concept of the Electoral College, designed to prohibit that imbalance of voter power, also extends to the Senate. If we abolish the EC, why wouldn’t we then abolish the Senate where all states… regardless of population… have equal representation, and act as a balance to the House who’s membership is dictated by population? For that matter, using the same theory these state bills do, why doesn’t the Senate now have to automatically pass anything the House does, since they are more reflective of the nation’s population in membership?
This entire business of changing a state’s EC votes based on national popular vote makes me queasy… The fact that no one in any of these eight affected states has mounted a high profile challenge in the courts makes me even more queasy.
In fact, while some are quick to pronounce such a roundabout method to usurp what was clearly not the intent of the Founders – aka a President elected by national popular vote – as easily Constitutional, that is not necessarily the case. This would have to be scrutinized by a court, and determined whether it was the type of interstate pact that required Congressional approval.
Not all compacts require congressional consent under the Compact Clause. The Supreme Court has allowed interstate compacts to stand without congressional consent if they are non-political and fall outside the scope of the Compact Clause (Seattle Master Builders Ass’n v. Pacific Northwest Elec. Power and Conservation Planning Council, 786 F. 2d 1359 (9th Cir. 1986)).
To date, every case arising under the Compact Clause has concerned boundary, commercial, or regulatory compacts (Robert W. Bennett, State Coordination in Popular Election of the President Without a Constitutional Amendment, 5 Green Bag 2d 141, 141 n. 2 (2002)). Because no compacts challenged for want of congressional consent have ever been found to touch upon “political” matters, by treading either on federal interests or non-compacting states’ interests, the Supreme Court has never invalidated a compact under the Compact Clause (David E. Engdahl, Characterization of Interstate Arrangements: When Is a Compact Not a Compact?, 64 Mich. L. Rev. 63, 81 (1965)). Thus, it is unclear how a court would decide this issue.
Political Consent Theory. The Supreme Court would likely consider the compact under the “Political Consent” Compact Clause theory. This reasoning evaluates whether the compact contains a political subject affecting federal interests or the interests of non-compacting sister states, in which case congressional consent is required (U. S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Comm’n, 434 U. S. 452, 477 (1978)).
Proponents of the Interstate Compact argue that the compact does not actually interfere with non-compacting states and therefore may be formed without congressional approval. Opponents argue that the Interstate Compact impairs the effectiveness of non-compacting states’ electoral votes, and thus requires congressional consent (Derek T. Muller, The Compact Clause and the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, 6 Election L. J. 372 (2007)).
An excerpt from a working paper by Derek T. Miller at Penn State U is of the opinion this quasi-interstate compact would fail the Constitutional sniff test.
In Part III, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is examined and found constitutionally deficient. The Compact is actually a compact under the Compact Clause of the Constitution, because the Court has broadly construed what makes a compact. In particular, because the Compact is not effective until a critical mass of States have enacted it, and because States are constrained from withdrawing from the Compact too close to a presidential election, the Compact falls under constitutional scrutiny. Additionally, the Compact addresses a political matter that affects the interests of non-compacting sister States, and the compacting States enhance their political power at the expense of other States. The Article examines the various defenses of the Compact but finds that none of them overcome the political interests of sister States. Therefore, barring congressional consent, the Interstate Compact would fail.
Considering that the eight states that have eagerly enacted such a Constitutional suicide pact for a Presidential election are serious left leaning states, such a challenge in the courts is unlikely to happen. But with Louisiana, California and Colorado already visiting such a concept, any one of those states would effectively tip any election into the Democrat laps.
But wait… this gets better. The bizarre attempts to hand more-than-equal voting power to a urban Americans – or as former Delaware Gov. Pete du Pont called it, the “urban power grab” – brings even more “creative” analogies used by pundits to justify this movement. And WaPo’s Ezra Klein should be awarded a Most anti-Constitutionalist Pundit of the Day award for his “out of the box” analogy, suggesting that the EC is akin to giving more voting power to the young because they will be more affected by the election outcome.
WTF?
First he offers his “out of the box” idea for debate:
America should implement weighted voting to make voting more objective and fair, and give the young more power, because the consequences of political decisions will affect them the longest. Weighted voting would restore power to twenty and thirty year olds, where it resided before the advent of medical science. With the aid of computers, it would be easy to give everyone a Voting Score, just like we all have a credit score.
When he’s rightfully excoriated for such an absurd suggestion by emails and comments, he does an update, explaining his “idea” was to make a point…. that some states enjoy more voting power even tho they have smaller populations.
Some people seem to think I’m advocating reweighting votes by age. I’m not. I’m pointing out that weighting votes by state, which is what we currently do, doesn’t make any more sense. It was an important political compromise that helped coax concerned states into the union, but a lot of time has passed since then, and now it’s an anachronism that unwisely gives a resident of Montana a more powerful vote than a resident of Michigan. I’m for unweighting votes entirely, and anyone who feels themselves getting angry at the idea of tilting democracy toward the young or the college-educated other group should ask themselves whether they aren’t, also.
Below is the map of the states, and their allocated EC votes in the 2008 election.
I’m not sure just how math challenged Mr. Klein is, but I don’t see that 3 EC Montana votes is “a more powerful” voice than Michigan’s 17 EC votes.
The EC is a complex critter that has evolved over time. Congressional Research Service’s Thomas H. Neale
wrote an article in 1999, briefly touching on the Constitional origins and it’s development thru the decades. The closest it ever came to effective abolishment was the failed The Bayh-Celler Amendment, which a disgruntled Congress attempted to pass after the 1968 election of Richard Nixon, when 3rd party candidate, George Wallace, siphoned off over 13% of the vote. Opposition was not divided along party lines, but size of states lines. Rightfully so. Anything that is decided by the whims of the nation’s population ushers smaller state populations to the back of the bus.
The single most important concept is that the Founding Fathers put the system in place specifically to preserve states as a Republic. To protect them from discrimination because of size of populations. And most important, to make sure the Presidential election did not become a national popular vote. They gave the power to the states to determine how their electors were chosen. But no where does it indicate Constitutional intent to negate the state elections in favor of a psuedo national election – all based on the results of a political beauty contest. Yet this is exactly what these state bills accomplish.
Vietnam era Navy wife, indy/conservative, and an official California escapee now residing as a red speck in the sea of Oregon blue.
There is one very important detail that oldgulph is missing in his numerous posts on this topic, other than the fact that the Constitution spells out our current form of voting for President.
That detail is that it isn’t about population percentages. It’s about the voting breakdown percentages concerning urban(cities), and suburban and rural areas. The percentage of voters who vote, in urban areas, for the democrats is much, much higher than the political breakdowns of likely voters. Rural areas tend to vote, in percentages, closer to the national averages. What this means is that the cities tend to determine the winners in statewide elections, and despite the occasional flip, such as Kirk’s win in Illinois last election, overall, the cities tend to go for the liberal progressive type candidates, usually in such heavy numbers that it overshadows the results from the suburban and rural areas of the states. This is an important distinction, and the results, as far as Democrat wins nationwide, would be much more frequent if we had a National Popular Vote that determined the President.
Again, it’s not the population percentages within the cities, compared to suburban and rural areas, but rather, the percentages that the cities themselves tend to vote for Democrat candidates, compared to percentage of votes cast in other areas.
States have the right to determine how their electors are chosen.
That being said, I think it is totally unConstitutional for a state to say that their electors will be determined based on the votes outside of their state. I firmly believe that the selection of electors must be based solely on the vote results of the residents of the state and this is why I strongly oppose NPV.
Unfortunately in this case I live in Washington State. I find it ironic that, in the 2008 election, if NPV were in play, all of the 52.8% of voters that chose Kerry would have had their votes totally overturned and Washington’s electoral votes would have been given to Bush – based solely on the vote outcome outside of the state.
Oldgulph, I once owned a ranch in the Peace River country. At the time I had not seen mug of the world. I met a rancher from Texas with a new motorhome on the ALCan. We found out we were in the same business and we enjoyed talking cattle and crops. The Texan was talking up his ranch pretty good and I was falling behind in things to talk about, at least things that could compare. Finally, he told me he could get in his truck and drive all day in one direction and never get off his ranch. I told him, I had a truck like that awhile back and I traded it off.
Now that Texas rancher was a much bigger rancher than me and obviously made a lot more money than me, but he was just trying to impress me with his ranch that he was so proud of. I have no reason to doubt his sincerity or honesty: you on the other hand, seem to have ulterior motives and have no concept of honesty or integrity. That my Liberal BS’er defines the difference between having respect for someone and regarding someone as a total jerk.
He ain’t here, Skook… if you search his “oldgulph” name and “national popular vote”, you’ll see he’s just a cut/paste artist that runs around, delivers the garbage to spam a thread, then bolts. He’s not even original in his repetative comments. Literally just pulls one out of the propaganda library, drops it in… adds several others, then is gone.
He’s in the spam filters now… Curt figured it out quick.
@Gaffer: You still are avoiding my question….
Quite telling on your part. You don’t know the difference, so you ignore the question.
I suppose the old saying is spot on in your case –
“Ignorance is bliss.”
Trees don’t vote.
@Mata
I guess you choose to not care when the pin up of the American hard right contradicts you. Lol. Logically if she as I believes that the US is a democracy then she is also delusional according to you. And she’s not a foreigner – so what’s her excuse. But squirm away.
Meanwhile what does the US Army say…
I guess the US Army is also delusional too? Maybe you know more them and maybe you should educate them:D
@Mata
And how does merriam-Webster dictionary define Democracy?
http://i.word.com/idictionary/Democracy
So prey how does the US system not fall under 1st definition? You know a country can be a republic AND a democracy y’know! I guess you don’t care for dictionarys either and knowing what words actually mean huh?
So maybe you could either educate Merriam-Webster or thank me for educating you on your own political system – lol:)
@Anticrocks – patience. You’re next after Mats finally admits the US is a democracy.
@GaffaUK:
In general terms, the United States is referred to as a democracy, and has it’s roots in Greek politics. However, the more specific term is a representative republic. Keep in mind that we are not talking about individual state elections, concerning that term, but rather, the federal government. The founding fathers of America did not want a pure democracy, which does result in majority rule. They saw the pitfalls in that kind of system, and fashioned a government in the hopes that they could avoid those in the government they gave the United States.
The biggest difference between a democracy, and a republic, is that in a democracy, it is rule by the whims of the majority, while in a republic, it is rule by law, typically derived from a constitution, written to preserve rights for the people.
Now, a National Popular Vote, as discussed above, takes away one of the principles the founding fathers used to prevent a rule by majority, which in the case of then, and now, would reside within the urban centers of the country. As I stated in the other topic you and I discussed, the intent was to give the states power in electing the person(s) who would represent them. A move to a popular vote would erode even more of the states’ individual sovereignty, which, as I wish the United States to move more towards it’s roots, I oppose the move to any type of popular vote machinations.
So, in short, yes, the U.S. Army is wrong. And so is Ms. Palin. If……………and this is a big IF………….they are discussing it in specific terminology. For my part, I rather think that they were using the general idea.
Hey Gaffa, if you search a little further you will come to find that your clearly defined democracy actually has no universally excepted meaning; besides the “majority vote”. Because people are generally highly uninformed or in the case of yourself an arrogant idiot they simply choose to call every country who elected any official whatsoever in its lifetime a democracy, but you will notice those same people will revoke a country the right to be called a democracy based on whether they feel its a country is a friendly country, even if the country has elected an official for example; “China is not a democracy”. Technically the pope is a product of democracy by your simple minded definition and so are most modern dictatorships, heck the soviet union was a democracy and Nazi germany. You are uninformed in a manner quite typical. The word has been thrown around a lot but your existentialist views on it are only going to make you eat humble pie, as Skookum would say.
I don’t know where you got the idea that Sarah Palin is some sort of conservative deity. Get over yourself arrogant one, as you seem to represent her more than most conservatives perhaps you can explain why I should take you seriously and not dismiss you as someone who lacks maturity and likely suffers from a poor self image, as most arrogant fools do.
@GaffaUK, tough for you Brits to grasp the different concepts of the English language, yes?
You’re standing beside your Triumph runabout, and I say “nice sports car”. Am I correct? Of course. Am I being specific on the actual vehicle, make, or model? Of course not.
If I say “nice Triumph TR-6”, I’m identifying the item as to it’s actual structure, and not in a generic sense. I do believe that this is what the more patient @johngalt was attempting to explain to you.
Our nation is founded as a “republic”… like that car is definitively described as a Triumph TR-6. When we are debating whether something in our country is conflicting with that more definitive description of our governmental structure – such as this abolition of the EC thru back door methods – the generalities of “sports car” do not suffice.
One of my favorite pundits and scholars, Walter E. Williams, has a brief but to the point article about the differences between a democracy and a republic in functionality… as well as quotes that indicate this is not only a very important distinction with the Founders/Framers intent, but the SCOTUS opinion as well. Oddly enough, he brings up this very subject of the Electoral Collage to make the point. Excerpts:
You may learn a bit more… if there’s an ounce of curiousity inbetween your schoolyard barbs and feeble attempts at defending the indefensible … from this excerpt from Hamilton Abert Long’s 1963 book, The American Ideal of 1776: The Twelve Basic American Principles. Long was a turn of the 20th century lawyer, veteran of both WWs, and a published author on legal Constitutional issues with the American Bar Association Journal.
Lastly. Palin is not my “pin up” for anything. I have my disagreements with some of her issues, as I have with other conservative politicians. The only conservative who’s principles I agree with, unequivocally, 24/7, is the one I see in the mirror.
As I repeat, your insistence on bringing Palin into the mix is simply another jelly bean trail to mask your lack of knowledge. Not knowing something very well isn’t a sin. It’s your lack of intellectual curiousity that is.
@Gaffer: You said:
LOL, johngalt, Mata and Zac clearly did YOUR homework for you…
BTW, in that Army example you copied and pasted and used without citing the source –
ROFLMAO!!
You used an example to say one thing and it actually proved you wrong!!!
Thanks for playing, carry on, chip cheery oh and all that!
@johngalt, Zac MataHarley & Antics +any othe angels would wish to dance on a pinhead…;)
I think you guys need to work with Venn diagrams as you don’t seem to understand overlapping terms and concepts…
Zac
The English language has plenty of terms which have various meanings. If I said you lived in a house I think we would and accept that you don’t live in wild animal’s den or a celestial sector – http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/house. And actually with just the definitions of democracy from one dictionary there are definitions which do not mention “majority vote’ – see above again. So you got that wrong. Nope – definition 1 of democracy pretty much captures the key definition of democracy that most people would recognise. However let’s try Republic…
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic?show=0&t=1305888802
Wow – so Republic has no one definition either! Who would of thought?! However most people would except that it’s a state which isn’t ruled by a monarch and is usually a President. No specific mention of Constitution there. Indeed plenty of non-Republics have Constitutions. And look it also mentions that Republics have a elected officers and representatives (I although I suspect there are Republics today in in the world which don’t elect but appoint like the Roman Republic’s Senate) which is also mentioned in the defintion of Democracy.
Indeed please let me know if there are any modern democracries in the world today which don’t have a system of representation? Can’t think of any – so does mean there are no democracies in the world? lol. So whilst the terms Republic and Democracy are not synonymous they are also not diametric. The US is a Republic as it has a President and not a Monarch and it is a Democracy as the people vote for representatives to make decisions on their behalf.
If the President of the US was voted in by the popular vote that does not mean the US is therefore not a Republic. Indeed the French directly elected their President and France is a republic. Can you name me other examples where the Executive President of A republic is indirectly elected via an electoral college system?
Furthermore…
And this where I think you guys are confusing yourselves. I never mentioned ‘pure’ democracy – that system as far as I can see doesn’t exist in any modern country. ‘Representative’ Democracy still comes under the heading of democracy. This is something that obviously confuses poor Antics when bizarrely he believes my quote from the US Army Soldier’s manual contradicts myself (and the US army). Except a democracy, in terms of a modern nation – can have (and most, if not all that I know) have elected representatives. It’s kind of like saying the USSR is not communist because it wasn’t 100% pure communist and the US isn’t capitalist because it’s not 100% capitialist.
I think you find English didn’t originate in the US. But to avoid any excuses about English/American definitions I purposefully used the American dictionary of Merriam-Webster rather than OED – to nail your fallacy that the US isn’t a democracy. See definition 1.
Poor allegory. First saying a country is a republic – really doesn’t say much beyond that country isn’t ruled by a monarch and it probably has a President. There are over 120 soverign nation who consider themselves Republics – so actually saying the US is a republic and not a democracy isn’t defining it down from a Sports Car to a Triumph TR-6 but simply saying it’s a blue, black or silver car (i.e reduces it down by approx 40%). Whereas me saying the US is a democracy and you saying it is not – using your allegory – is like you saying the Triumph TR-6 isn’t even a car! lol it is.
The Economist Intelligence Unit rates the US in being the top 26 full democracies in the world.
http://www.eiu.com/public/topical_report.aspx?campaignid=demo2010
Even if you count what they consider flawed democracies and hybrid regimes – there are still less countries in the world which can be considered democracies than there are countries which are republics. So yourself being deluded into thinking that the US is not a democracy is laughable. Because the Founding Fathers wanted to avoid having the POTUS being directly elected and their concern over ‘pure’ democracy per se that doesn’t mean that the US isn’t a democracy.
MATAHARLEY, WOW, YOUR 68 IS A GEM, to save, thank you , the first I read on my site, and I had to come right away to tell you what I think of your hard work to come up with this one which I am sure will go around the WORLD to to people who want to know the real meaning of it,
LONG LIVE THE REPUBLIC OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Wow… so that’s what a spammer-stuck-on-stupid looks like.
Be brave, Gaffa… swim outside the big bad Merriam-Webster world and embrace specifics on the Framers/Founders intents in the formation of this country by reading their words. That is what is at issue with our debate of the EC. If you do not have enough intellectual curiousity to ramp up to speed on the legal intents of the FFs, then tend to your own backyard.
@GaffaUK:
No, you didn’t. I did. However, you cannot continue to claim certain truths, and discuss specifics, by talking in generalities, as you are doing. This discussion devolved into the type of government the U.S. has, and has been pointed out to you, numerous times, we do not have a democracy. When talking specifics, democracy should be defined by it’s definition, not by a generality.
We haven’t confused ourselves at all. We realize that within our representative Republic, that certain functions are held by actions defined under the term democracy. Indeed, it is that way throughout most of the world’s countries that hold elections. However, one cannot use the term democracy, in specifics, to define the government of the United States.
You seem to have a great disdain of what our founding fathers have stated on this issue, and what they have given America, under it’s Constitution, for it’s type of government. Unfortunately, we in this country have many of our own citizens who think as you do, that the “piece of paper” our founders have given us should be subjected to changes based on the whims of current politicians, and the population, without going through the Constitutionally mandated process of how it is changed. That, for me personally, is what I’m most concerned about, as it leads to essentially what we in America see today, of rule by the whims of men, instead of rule by law, as was originally intended. There is no standard to compare anything to, when rule is by the whims of men. Nothing is sacred, and it leads only to the “anything goes” mentality. A change to a National Popular Voting method for President only takes the United States further to that ultimate destination, as it brings the country closer to ‘majority rule’, with the rights, freedoms, and liberties, of the minority groups be damned.
We are a Representative Republic, not a Democracy. That is true no matter how you look at it, or spin it.
Well, unless you are voting for President… all votes are popular. Why diminish this concept by using minimizing language?
If this subject could be discussed in a vacuum (and not looking at the next election of Obama) it would make sense to allow the popular vote to be the deciding factor. Why not have one person one vote rule in our democratic process? Should not all votes count?
I can find many political words that maybe once had meaning but now the words meanings are now ruled by the whims of men, kind of like how you want our republic to be. Fascist is the first that comes to mind.
You represent overlapping principals quite well, you actually proved that by modern existentialist definition almost every country is both a democracy and a republic, every country is also socialist and fascist, very soon racist will be a system of government to; due to the use of the word. You have argued my point here and I didn’t even ask you to. I have no time for silly word games, but just to let you know; there are more comprehensive sources of information on words than webster and they will only make political definitions more murky, because the words have been used in so many different manners they no longer have a concrete meaning or a meaning at all, as in the case of “fascist”. At the time the constitution/federalist papers they did have a more solid meaning and that’s why the words were used and described. Really what you are describing is the destruction of the english language, I speak 4 languages (poorly) and have had the pleasure of witnessing a million word definitions and how meanings have changed in classical literature Vs modern dictionary terms.
Zac, hi, yes, absolutly true
The crime that I detest far more than the abuse of words, is when a product of another country’s policy tells us we must allow our government to swallow our freedoms and use the constitution as a napkin to wipe the crumbs of liberty from the lips of our representatives. They may not understand; that “piece of paper” is the only thing that separates us from despotism, had we run out of paper or if the signers had forgotten their pen, where would the US be today?….
Don’t worry, Zac…. Gaffa’s been around here a long time. No one listens to him anyway. And now you’ve had your crash course in knowing why.
@MataHarley:
I am writing a letter to the local rep. to ask him what are his reasons for pushing this legislation. I’ll let you know what we find out.
Would love to hear what he has to say, Sid…. Can you remember to come back here and let us know?
Will do. If you are interested here is an article concerning the legislation. http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20110508/NEWS01/105080313/Movement-seeks-elect-U-S-president-by-popular-vote
These wonderful public servants say they don’t want to disenfranchise voters. I think it’s time that we disengage them from their offices before we are disenfranchised and a few well populated states elect our President
1 voter, 1 vote.
If you looked at the electoral votes in a state as a function of the number of registered voters, you will find that the most overrepresented states (most EVs per person) are (1) Wyoming, (2) District of Columbia, (3) Vermont, (4) North Dakota, and (5) Alaska.
The most UNDERrepresented states (fewest EVs per person) are (1) Texas, (2) Florida, (3) California, (4) Arizona, and (5) Georgia. New York is #6.
So if you’re a person from states with larger populations, your vote counts LESS than people from smaller, less populated states.
@ John Galt
By definition using a definition from a modern dictionary is the right way to define the term democracy as understood today. Whereas talking about what some of the Founding Fathers may have thought about democracy is generalising particularly when in some cases they are clearly refering to one type of democracy which is pure or direct democracy as opposed to representative democracy.
So tell me , if the US isn’t a democracy – which countries in the world today are democracies?
@Zac
lol – you mean before words weren’t ruled by men or their whims? So were words may up by non-men – maybe Gods, women, who knows? – or just solid men who had no whims? lol
That’s not the destruction but the beauty of the English language. Youmay speak 4 language poorly but looks like you have a poor understanding of English – as words within English have always been fluid. Meaning change all the time. There wasn’t a time when all expressions in English were fixed on one definition and had no change! Indeed many English terms had various different spellings. I suggest you read Bill Bryson’s excellent ‘Mother Tongue’.
As I person who lives in the 21st century when I use expressions I tend to use their 21st century meaning and not the apparent/supposed meaning in the late 18th century. So when someone like MataHarley says the US is not a democracy then like most people that means democracy as understood today. Just look at a word like ‘nice’ – it used to mean wanton.
By the way how has the meaning of Fascist changed?
@Mata
Sorry when refering to the present I’m going to use 21st century English – so the US is a democracy as defined by the dictionary of today. You see dead men aren’t very good at defining words 100% accurately for in centuries in the future. Do you go round and only use in English as spoken in the US from the late 18th century?
Btw – if the US had kept with then intents of the Founding Fathers you wouldn’t even have a vote – lol:D
So yes times do move on – expressions change and the Constitution can and has been amended.
@GaffaUK:
The Constitution has been amended several times. Why then are these agenda driven politicians trying to sneak this EC repeal through state legislatures? Probably because they won’t have the opposition they would on a national platform. The Founding Fathers were very explicit in their reasoning for the EC and if we do away with it then we have lost state sovereignty and the republic is dead.
@Sid:
Gaffa doesn’t understand the difference between a republic and a democracy, and he doesn’t think our states are supposed to be their own sovereign entities. I highly doubt your message will get through to him.
@blast:
President and VP are the only two offices that the country votes on. We don’t vote for Secretary of State, etc. And it’s the states that are to decide whom represents the republic. The FF were brillant when they came up with this concept.
@GaffaUK, you can use any definition you want as an outsider with no knowledge of our founding. But as I said, when it comes to legalities of abolishment of the Constitutionally established EC, generalities don’t fly in a court of law. And it’s obvious you are inept enough in all ways to have ever been a Constitutional lawyer.
Tend to your own back yard. Your attempts to defend your ignorance here are merely annoying tripe.
@GaffaUK:
My point, Gaffa, is that simply labeling the United States a ‘democracy’, in a discussion of specific political mechanism and theory, is wrong. Generally, the United States is considered a democracy, and yes, there is overlap between a democracy, and a republic, and yes, a republican form of government generally follows ideas from general democratic theory. However, the differences between the two are such that the United States should be considered a republic, and never a democracy.
One important point of note, is that in a democracy, majority rules, whether it’s direct(or pure) with the citizens voting on the legislation themselves, or whether elected representatives vote in place of the direct votes of the citizens. We do not have that, or at least, it isn’t supposed to work like that, even though in modern times it seems to. We, the United States, have two bodies of legislators. One, elected to represent the people directly, through representatives. And one, which was intended to be representative of the sovereign states, and not the people. This is the most important point when considering what type of government the United States has. The unfortunate side effect of the 17th amendment is that the states no longer have a true, representative voice in the federal government, as it isn’t their interests that the Senators consider, when deliberating legislation, but the majority of people within their state, that voted for them. This is an important distinction.
Probably best to simply give it up, johngalt. Gaffa is not about getting the point, but scoring points (in his own mind). I genuinely believe you, or my, “point”, is above his ability to comprehend. He’ll just google the word “democracy”, do a cut/paste and say “see? what a good boy am I”.
@Sid
I agree any changes from the POTUS being elected from the EC to a popular vote should be done through the proper constitutional channels. I wonder if any of those who are against the POTUS being elected through popular votes would have a problem with that – if it was done constitutionally?
@Mata
See my reply to Sid – I never said I supported changing it to the popular via a non-constitutional method. That was your ASSumption. I’m just challenging you with your belief that the US is not a democracy. As I say it’s a good job the Constitution has been amended over the years as you wouldn’t have the vote due to your gender and neither would Barack Obama due to his skin colour.
@John Galt
So under your description France and many othe republics are not republic because they elect their President by popular vote? Unfortunately it seems you take the details of the US system and use this as a description of what a republic constitutes. Sorry republics come in many shapes and sizes. Republic refers to the fact that you don’t have a monarchy. After the specifics are specific to your system and not to the definition of a republic.
Again this is not definition or distinction of a republic. The UK is a constitutional monarchy AND a democracy. And the British do not directly elect their Prime Minister. They elect MPs from their geographical constitutencies and the party which wins the most votes if they have a majority (or can form a majority through coalition with another party) becomes the government and their leader becomes Prime Minister. It is quite possible for a person to be Prime Minister and have less votes than the Leader of the Opposition or another party. Sounds familar? So your distinctions don’t actually hold water.
Remember Rome was a Republic – but it’s officals weren’t representative in that they weren’t elected – they were appointed. So your definitions would mean almost all the Republics today and in history would no longer be Republics! Which is absurd.
@Mata
And here are Presidents of your country who believe the US is a democracy….are they delusional? Maybe you should go through your books and replace their words they say with Republic or maybe you should know your backyard…and realise the US is a republic and democracy. lol
— Thomas Jefferson
John Quincy Adams
Abraham Lincoln
William Henry Harrison
Teddy Roosevelt
Woodrow Wilson
William G Harding
Herbert Hoover
FDR
Truman
Ronald Reagan
George Bush
Bill Clinton
George W Bush
😀
@MataHarley:
I’m sure you are right on that. His most recent post in response to my comments just bear out your thoughts. I started discussing it with him due to his asinine comments here;
That comment by Gaffa merely showed his lack of understanding of our form of government, and the intents of our forefathers when they gave us our Constitution.
@Mata
All those quotes above except Jefferson were from Presidents inaugural addresses – so hardly a slip of the tongue. You can bemoan research all you want and the use of dictionary to define terms but it’s more evidence which nails your ignorance of the term democracy. If you think I’m delusional thinking the US is a democracy then so logically it follows that you must think all those Presidents, the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the US Army and Sarah Palin are also delusional.
Here you show your ignorance of the term Republic. A republic doesn’t not need a EC system for it to be a Republic. That is true back when Rome was a republic, when the US became a republic as it is true today. If the US adopted a system where the President was elected popular vote – guess what – it would still be a republic!
Geez, Gaffa. I don’t even know if I feel sorry that you’ve outed yourself as such a dingbat. So all “republics” or “democracies” are identical in their Constitutional laws in your amoebic mind? I’ll tell you what… when the other member republics/states of your EU are allowed to do a popular vote on your PM, you get back to us.
@Gaffer: Google is not always your friend.
You have no original thoughts on this, other than to denigrate our way of life and our way of governing ourselves:
But I tell you what, go Google a couple dozen more instances in which a well known political figure from our past calls America a democracy and cut and paste that and you can then go brag about putting us Yanks in our place.
While you are doing that, we will be laughing at your arrogance, ignorance and lack of original thought.
Have a nice day, and thanks for playing.
@GaffaUK:
Benjamin Franklin, upon exiting the Constitutional Convention after having just then signed it after it was completed, was asked what form of government the convention had given us. He replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”
Article IV, Section 4 states;
No where within the Constitution is the word “Democracy” used. Not once.
James Madison, the principle author of the United States Constitution, writes in Federalist Paper no. 10;
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed10.htm
I would suggest a complete reading of Federalist Paper no. 10.
As for your quotes, I’ve answered with one already, by Franklin above. Let me now answer with more;
And I could list many, many more.
Now, concerning the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, allow me to present this;
Notice that the definition states “especially : rule of the majority”. This is an important distinction to make, regarding a democracy.
And this, from the same source;
Notice that this definition states “governing according to law”.
Now you see the major difference between a democracy and a republic, which the U.S. has. And if we go back to Madison’s Federalist Paper no. 10, where he discusses the differences, and why a republic was chosen, instead of a democracy, we note that we have not just one, but two bodies within the legislature. One body, elected based on select portions of the population, and representing the people, is as close to a democracy in our republican form of government as you will see. The other body, constituted of an equal number of Senators, from each individual, sovereign entity belonging to this United States, has disproportionate representation to the population entire, by design. It exists for two reasons. One, to allow the states their own representation within the federal government, separate from the people, and two, to act as a moderating mechanism over the majority voting, based on the population, of the House.
At least, that was the intent, until the 17th amendment, where the Senate’s membership was then changed to reflect the majority of the people, within a state, and not the state, as a separate, individual entity.
Again, I will say, that in general terminology, within a general discussion of American politics, that the use of the word democracy, describing our government, is acceptable, as the terms do have overlapping descriptives. However, in a specific discussion, concerning our type of government, using the term democracy is NOT acceptable, and not correct. Republic is the correct terminology.
@johngalt: Check and mate.
@John Galt
Last things first…
Saying that something is a democracy generally but specifically simply doesn’t make sense. To use MataHarley’s example – imagine a blue Triumph TR-6. You say it’s a sports (Republic) car. And I agree but I also say it’s a blue (Democracy) car. You say specifically it’s a Triumph TR-6 (a specific type of Republic which has representative democracy and has an EC which I believe is unique to US) and I agree but I say specifically because it’s a Triumph TR-6 that doesn’t stop it being a blue car – so the statement this specific car is a Triumph TR-6 and isn’t a blue car is patently false. In the same way you can’t say that the US is a Republic but isn’t a Democracy. Capice?
Q: I don’t believe the Constitution refers to the US as being as capitialist society does that therefore mean the US isn’t a capitialist society?
The Founding Fathers were wary of democracy – but in many cases that was pure democracy as opposed to representative democracy. And it is certainly true they created the EC as they didn’t want the President being elected by popular – and I have never disputed that. By here’s the thing – having the President being elected by popular vote doesn’t stop it being a Republic!
Q: Is France not a Republic because it elects it President directly by popular vote?
As for your quote which mention Republic – they are all very interesting but miss the point as I have never denied that the US is a Republic! I’m saying it’s a republic and a democracy. Because you prefer the terminology Republic doesn’t stop it being a democracy as we understand the meaning today.
Because republics have laws that is not a distinction between Republics and Democracies because Democracies have laws too!
Q: So what countries do you believe are democracies today?
Q: Which democracies today don’t have laws?
@Mata
I know it must be intellectually hard for you to debate with someone who has a different point of view – but your pointless ad hominen attacks really let you down. They seem to increase portionally to the amount you seem to lose the debate and unable to concentrate on making genuine insights, rebuttals etc. But now your unpleasantness has surpassed your normal gutter level and now you are making up lies. I never said that Republics and Democracies are identical. Please show me where I said that. John Galt is by far a superior more respectual person to have a debate with than you.
Anyway here are some serious questions for you. See if you can answer them without being snide?
Let me know how many democracies you believe there are in the world today?
And is France not a republic because it doesn’t elect it’s President via an Electoral College?
@Gaffer: Talk about trying to be right just for the sake of saying, “See? I’m right!!”
Your confused blathering aside Gaffer, saying that the United States of America is a Democracy is using that term as an umbrella term. It is a Democracy, but it is much, much more than that.
Again, refer to johngalt’s post #98.
You are very disingenuous in your debating tactics.
On one hand you list quotes from prominent political figures in America that you think prop up your whole “America is a Democracy” argument and then on the other hand you dismiss quotes listed by johngalt that prove your argument wrong.
Have you no integrity?
Backasswards, Gaffa. Why does that not surprise me? The “generic sports car” is the democracy term you rest on as your selling point. The “specific Triumph TR-6”, using America’s definitive founding principles, is the republic. Dang… you can’t even get the analogy I mentioned correct. Let me repeat my #68 analogy… read slow, bubba.
yah… that’s like “sports car” = republic and “Triumph TR6 = blue”. LOL
One can only go so far in civil debate when continued responses from the intellecutal amoeba needs to be called onto the carpet, Gaffa. Just desserts for your hard headed refusal to be schooled.
And speaking of lies, you said:
I’m sorry…. do show me where I accused you of saying that republics and democracies are identical? There are a quite a few “republics” in both nation states, and our country’s states. And what I said is that their Constitutional laws vary…. even tho they are “republics”. This is in direct response to your dingbat statement:
well, duh. Why don’t you show me where I said “a republic must have an electoral college”?
But our *republic” does indeed have that creation for handling the individual state elections for the POTUS… not a national election… and how those state results are tallied for the POTUS. THus the reasoning for the debate between *we Americans* that the back door thru state legislation to abolish a constitutionally established voting method for POTUS is simply unconcionable. It’s called specifics for our nation’s structure, our nation’s law, our nation’s founding. Something you’ve demonstrated to know nothing of, and refuse to learn about because it’s inconvenient to your talking points.
So your point?
I repeat… get back to us when your EU nation states/republics are allowed to have their citizens popular vote pick your PM.
@Gaffer: You seriously think you won this debate with Mata??
ROFLMAO!!
Then you have the balls to say this to her:
Snide? You mean like this?
Why do you even care how we elect our President? It really is none of your business.
@GaffaUK, to your “serious” question, I have this to say.
Who gives a flying fart how many democracies (or whatever that term means to you) there are, or are not, in the world. They are not my concern. My country is.
Why you would consider that “serious”… who knows. Follow your own jelly bean trail. I’m not interested.
@GaffaUK:
As you don’t quite understand my points, it is hard to have a reasonable debate, or discussion, with you on this. I have tried being patient, and have explained my points numerous times, many different ways, and you still have not gotten it. I am exhausted on this, and you haven’t made a valid point yet, but merely repeated, again and again, a belief that using the term democracy, in description of the type of government the U.S. has, is acceptable.
I will just answer this comment from you, as it pertains to the original OP;
No, it doesn’t, you are right. However, our forefathers set up the EC system as one aspect of our Republic, as one part of the design of the whole. To take that away, from the original design, invites negative consequences, as written by Madison in Federalist Papers no. 10.
One needs look no further than the 17th Amendment to see the negative consequences that can happen when the original design is changed. When the Senate became elected due to popular statewide vote, the states themselves lost their representation of their interests, replaced by the popular interests of it’s citizens, particularly the major urban centers within the particular state, which may, or may not, have the best interests of the state in mind when debating federal law. It was an ill-conceived move, and needs to be repealed, just as a National Popular Vote for president would be.
To end though, go ahead and call it what you want. I’ll still call it a republic, and be right about it, as words matter, be they from back in the late 1700’s, or today in the 2000’s.
@John Galt
Well it’s a shame you feel that way. You can disagree with something and still understand it. I disagree that women and blacks were unable to vote when the US was originally formed. That does mean I don’t undertand the context of those times. Similarly I understand the EC system and reasons the Founding Fathers chose that – but I don’t agree that it is the best system particularly today.
I think we both made valid points and it seems odd and dismissive that you believe I have made no valid points particularly when you have agreed (to a degree) with some of them. I haven’t merely repeated. I have expanded and gone into depth. I believe I have answered all your points. However you have failed to answer quite a few of mine – even though I have asked several times. I even put the last set of questions in bold. And yet they remain unanswered.
Although the post is originally about whether the EC system should be changed to a popular vote or not – I have focused in a tangent (which is fine as they happen all the time) on Mata’s ascertion that the US is not a democracy. That is what I have attempted to address – because if we create false definitions and misunderstandings about the terms Republic and Democracy that how do we hope to debate EC. The use of EC has nothing to do with the term Republic – is does not define whether something is a Republic or not. I am more than happy to use the term Republic but it is also accurate to say that the US is a democracy or that it is a captialist society. If it not acceptable then why do so many Presidents specifically refer to the US as a democracy. And as I say, and will repeat – saying something in general is correct but specifically is wrong does not make sense.
Well thank God the original design did change – as I say otherwise women and blacks wouldn’t be able to vote. That doesn’t mean all change is good but that we shouldn’t fossilise our thinking to fall in line to what ever certain gentlemen of the late 17 century believed. The thing is that states are not living breathing entities – they are political and artifical boundaries. Give more votes proportionally to the small states so they don’t get dominated by the big states? So a vote by and individual carries more weight than in California! How does the weighting get decided – isn’t that gerrymandering? Wouldn’t be easier and fairer than every American has an equal vote? Or is it because Republicans know that they would do worst off if people more populated states had equal votes – so it’s self interest. What if they were more people living in the country than in the cities – how would you rebalance the EC then? And besides out of all the Presidential elections – how many results would change if there had been decided by popular vote. Would things really go to the dogs?
Of course you would be right and I didn’t dispute that the US is a republic. You say I misunderstand you and yet you felt the need to show quotes where Presidents use the word republic. Which again I have never disputed! lol. What I have disputed and why I posted Presidents quotes who have use the word democracy is because some of you say the US is not a democracy. As well as being a republic the US is also a democracy. As I say the two words are not diametric. Again have a look at my questions on my last post which I have put in bold. I would be interested in your replies.
And no one said it did, Gaffa. Speaking again of lies… I pointed this out to you already. But considering how you didn’t even come close to my Triumph/sports car analogy in accuracy, I think it’s safe to say reading comprehension ain’t your forte.
The EC and our republic status is central to the debate because of our republic structure, and the constitutional mandate that the POTUS election is individual state elections, voting for “the electors”‘ of the candidate. The electors then cast their votes in the electoral college. And they may be “unfaithful”, tho that is rare.
So if you really want to get specific, the individual state citizens are not even casting votes for the candidates themselves, but the electoral appointees. That’s the way we work. Ergo, having a mandate for the electoral appointees to change their state’s results via other states’ voting results for their respective electoral appointees is unConstitutional.
MATA, I wonder how the military votes from those in warzone or other foreign COUNTRYS,
AND also the CIVILIENS working for diverse COMPANYS, HOW those new changes will fit in
their votes being legitimise by those STATES WHO APPROVED THAT IMPLEMETATION
BYE
@GaffaUK:
Mata has called me patient, and I am, although at a certain point, patience becomes a fault. I have explained, over and over, using different wordings, why applying the term ‘Democracy’ to the United States, within a discussion of specific government types, is unacceptable. I have given examples of statements, most notably, and most importantly, Madison’s from his Federalist Paper no. 10, of the term ‘Republic’ applied to the United States. James Madison is considered the principle author of our Constitution, and as he, in his essay, notes that the United States is not specifically a democracy, so it is that I believe as well.
In the interest of rational discussion, I will answer them, however, I didn’t avoid them at the time. I merely didn’t choose to answer them, as they did not, and do not, matter, to the discussion at hand.
No, it doesn’t. However, the freedoms and liberties assumed, and enumerated, within the document lead one to consider that the United States was founded under the principles of a ‘Free Market’. That, perhaps, is a more accurate term than ‘Capitalism’, as that term was first observed in history in a novel published in 1854, by William Thackeray. To delve more into that question involves running off in a tangent that I do not wish to, and I won’t.
No, it doesn’t change their government type because it’s President is elected by popular vote. However, just as it is termed a republic, and as it has some of the same features as the U.S., it is also quite different, in that the Head of State, the President, is elected, while the Head of Government, the Prime Minister, is appointed, by the President. Their Senate has very limited capacity for influencing the affairs and laws of it’s government. I point these differences out because they are important distinctions, and particular to France, just as our specific system of government is particular to us, in the United States. I didn’t answer this question when you put it to us because it doesn’t matter. No one has stated that it would make the United States not a Republic, if the President were elected by popular vote. However, it removes an important instrument, of our specific government, that the founders gave us, to ensure that certain negative consequences from the general republican form of government would not arise.
Is this a specific question, or generalized? This is a hard question to answer by simple note of the sheer magnitude of countries in the world today. As well, it doesn’t matter what I believe of other countries’ governments, however, for the sake of argument, I’d say that in general terms, there are many countries that use democratic practices within their governments, but they aren’t all considered democracies, when concerned with specific terms. This is one of the important points that I am making. The two terms, democracy, and republic, are not mutually exclusive, and no one here has claimed that they are, but they are not interchangeable either, as you seem to believe. And as we are discussing the specific type of government that the United States has, using the term democracy, as I have stated, is unacceptable.
It’s not whether or not they have laws. In democracies, the laws are not limited by a set of ‘supreme laws’, but rather, only limited by the whims of the majority. In those cases, the rights of the minorities are subject to the will of the majorities. This is one of the pitfalls of pure democracies, and is why our founders steered clear of that form of government to as much an extent as possible. Sure there are democratic principles behind much of the government of the United States, however, they are countered by more specific republican principles, intended to limit the influence, and possible tyranny, of the majority over the minority. Our presidential election, with the use of the EC, is one such example.
In #107, and this is a continuation of the answer from directly above;
They are not political, nor artificial boundaries, just as they are not living, breathing entities. The states were meant to be their own, individual, sovereign entities, hence the term ‘United States’. I suggest a thorough reading of the Federalist Papers, and Anti-Federalist Papers, to gain a more clear understanding of what that means, however, this Amendment, from our Constitution, should suffice for now;
What that means is that the federal government has been granted limited powers, by the states, to engage in specific acts on their behalf, such as those defined within Article I, Section 8, and that any other action, or power, not specifically granted to the Federal government, is reserved by Constitutional authority, to the states themselves. This Amendment would not be possible, nor required, if the states were something other than their own sovereign entities, which have engaged in a mutual agreement to form a federal government, by their own choice.
That is kind of the purpose, however, I think that you misunderstand the intent. The number of EC votes a state has is made up of it’s numbers of representatives(the people), and it’s senators(the states), so that the people have a voice, as well as the states, in their choosing of the President. Our Constitution leaves the manner of choosing a state’s electors, up to that individual state. Possibly the most accurate representation, although one not engaged in by but a very small number of states, would be that each individual district, within a state, choose their elector, and the statewide popular vote, choose the electoral representation of it’s senators, in order to disperse it’s electoral votes, and not solely by a statewide popular vote.
It isn’t based on which states are most populous, but rather geographic locations. Those within urban areas, tend to vote in much higher percentages than a national division of political party affiliation, than do the voters within suburban, and rural areas. In places like Chicago, for example, the democrats often receive greater than 80%, or even 90%, of the total votes, while those downstate, in more rural areas, tend to split fairly close to the national political party affiliations. As you can see, Chicago has a disproportionate weight, within a statewide vote within Illinois, than any other area in that state. Hence, their affinity for voting in Democrats to near exclusivity within statewide elections. The same is true, although not to as great an extent as Illinois, within New York, and California, and many of the NE states, such as Massachusetts, or the NW, such as Washington state.
Now, our founding fathers realized this, as even in the late 18th century, the majority of populations were centered around urban areas, and that the representation of the lesser populated, more rural states, such as SC and Georgia, would be overwhelmed by those within NY, or Massachusetts, or Pennsylvania. Hence, the idea of the EC, with it’s divisions of votes, to weight more fairly, and equitably, the choosing votes for President. The ideas then, are just as valid today, and in certain areas, even more so, such as Illinois.
Yes, and I agree. Which is precisely why the founding fathers left a mechanism in place so as to make the possible change to the Constitution a reality. In choosing to do so, they had to balance making the amending of the Constitution not so difficult so as to preclude the possibility of doing so, but not so easy so as to make the original design only a mere formality, most likely to be changed by the whims of men at every opportunity. Unfortunately, our government has failed to execute in their amending of the Constitution a few times, most notably in the Prohibition of Alcohol, and the change to elections of the Senators. It is interesting that both of these were instituted roughly at a similar time, when progressives were gaining influence within the U.S. government. They abolished one of those, and we, the United States, needs to abolish the other, as well. The reasoning behind the 17th Amendment was sound, the execution was not. But that is another topic of discussion.
Allow me to try for another analogy, then. When asked, or in a discussion, about a particular species of bird, let’s say, a Wood Duck, it is not acceptable to state that it is a waterfowl, and expect that that answer will suffice. It would be more accurate, and completely acceptable, to call the bird a Wood Duck, which is what it is. Although the term ‘waterfowl’ would not necessarily be wrong, it would not be accurate, particularly within a specific discussion of the specific bird. Try telling a conservation officer that because you have a stamp for shooting Mallards, another waterfowl, that it should mean you can also shoot the Wood Duck too, since they are both waterfowl. While your terms may not be wrong, as you applied them to the birds, they would be completely unacceptable within those specifics.
The final point: I don’t think that you do understand it, as you continue to insist that our States are not individual, Sovereign entities, although that is exactly how our Constitution was set up, and what some of us still fight for. This is a major point, that leads to the understanding of virtually all of the others. Until you reach that understanding, it will be hard, if not impossible, to understand why the need to retain the EC is so important to us. It also, as it happens, to be the major point of contention between liberals and conservatives, although many of both of them do not realize it. The idea that the states have willingly entered into an agreement with one another, to form a union, for the sole purpose of division of labor of those things that are difficult, if not impossible, for individual states to accomplish by themselves, is one of the foundations of our particular form of government, for our country.
Without understanding of that point, there can be no understanding of the succeeding points.
Another point of contention that bothers me about the uneducated. No where in the original Constitution were women and blacks prohibited from voting.
The criteria for voting eligibility was a republican states’ right to set that criteria. And states guaranteed a “republican government” is stated unequivocally in Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution.
Since the Constitution did not deny those rights, the “original design” did not have to be “changed”.
Rather what was amended was clarification of constitutionally protected rights that could not be denied by the states. i.e. the abolishment of slavery (13th Amendment), followed by the 15th Amendment in 1869, that made it unConstitutional to deny voting rights based on race. Any race. The states continued to keep their standards, denying women the vote, until the 19th Amendment in 1919… which stated voter eligibility cannot be prohibited by the states based on gender either.
Therefore the Constitution never had to be changed from it’s original design because the Constitition did not assume federal power for voting eligibility. The Constitutional amendments stepped in to prohibit the republican states’ from infringing on civil rights.
Lots of obscuring of the basic facts.
America is the sum of its people.
Not its buildings. Not its trees. Not its land.
People.
1 person, 1 vote. Make all votes equal.
Thanks for that insight into your lack of civic knowledge of our founding documents and structure, Steve Parker.
zzzzzzzzzz
@Steve Parker:
If you understood the reasoning behind the Electoral College, by, perhaps, reading Madison’s Federalist Paper no. 10, then you would realize that a National Popular Vote for President nullifies your last sentence.
@John Galt
If I said the Wood Duck was a waterfowl I would be absolutely correct. If I tried hunting Water Duck with a permit for Mallards because they are both waterfowl then yes that would be inappropriate. But that’s not what I doing. Why? Well let look at my general comments
#5
Although I believe and later stated the US is a democracy in my first post I didn’t actually state that US was a democracy.
However my sarcastic comment sparked some of you guys off including this…
Mata #41
Imagine that – if I said to you that you are under the delusion that the Wood Duck is a waterfowl? lol
GaffaUK #46
So that’s me saying a Wood Duck is a waterfowl. I didn’t say the form of Government of the US is best described as a Constitutional-based Federal Republic now did I? Maybe this why you assumed incorrectly that I was hunting Mallards. Saying the US is a democracy is a true statement.
John Galt #66
Which isn’t true – as far I can see – Republics per se generally aren’t defined by having a constitution. And having laws doesn’t mean you automatically have a consistution. Almost all countries have constitutions. Of course a Constitutional Republic does have a constitution but that is a specification of a type of Republic.
#John Galt #74
False statement – the Wood Duck is still a waterfowl.
An even though I have called the US a democracy in general terms (which doesn’t become void if that statement is included in a discussion about EC) we have plenty of Presidents who refers to the US specifically as a democracy. Are they wrong? No. Would Constitutional-based Federal Republic be more specific? Yes. But remember just saying Republic (even though this is the preferred term by many including yourself) still covers over 120 countries so it is as common as muck and not very specific at all as those 120 Republics vary greatly in their specific government types. So if you said the US was a Republic you would be right. If I said it was a Democracy I would be right. And if anyone said it was a Constitutional-based Federal Republic they also would be right and would be the most specific. However you can the US a democracy anywhere – in a restaurant, in the park or in a discussion on EC and it would still be a true statement.
Well this shows to me that yuo haven’t been reading my comments particulalry when I have stressed the Venn diagram, used the different dictionary definition of the terms Republic and Democracy, explained them and said the terms aren’t synonymous. If I said that the US doesn’t have a monarch therefore it is a democracy I would be incorrect. If I said that the US has a constitution, elects politicians and has an electoral system and therefore this makes it a Republic I would be incorrect. That’s context. My context saying the US is a democracy and a republic even within a debate on EC – is entirely correct and appropriate.
The US constitution has has further amendments and stills remains a Republic. It could lose the EC system and scrap elections and it would still be a Republic. But for more than a century the term democracy as we understand today is appropriate to also call the US. And anyone today who claims the US isn’t a democracy as it is today – as we understand the term is delusional.