Replies: 15
| visibility 386
|
110%er [9633]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11380
Joined: 9/10/99
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97386]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64602
Joined: 7/13/02
|
Ahh...the bane of every large democracy that has failed
Apr 5, 2019, 10:32 AM
|
|
And that's ALL of them btw. Tyranny of the majority. That's why we were designed to be a republic.
Might as well dismantle the Senate as well while you're at it. And cities and urban interests will rule the land. Heck, do away with the Senate and California and New York can rule the country.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9633]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11380
Joined: 9/10/99
|
It's impressive that our founders knew to put the EC in
Apr 5, 2019, 10:45 AM
|
|
place.
I'll admit - it would be interesting to see the difference in a campaign being run to win the popular vote. I'm in NC (a swing state) and we were buried with Trump/Hillary ads in 2016. If elections were won by popular vote - most of that campaign money would have been spent elsewhere (like Cali and NY) and not in NC.
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [110330]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73400
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Re: It's impressive that our founders knew to put the EC in
Apr 5, 2019, 10:49 AM
|
|
they James madison was afraid of a true democracy.
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97386]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64602
Joined: 7/13/02
|
French Revolution says hello.
Apr 5, 2019, 11:41 AM
|
|
As does the Weimar Republic, the Kerensky Provisional Government of Russia, Kuomintang Government of China, and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
And we won't go into the Roman Republic, which collapsed into a string of tyrants.
James Madison knew what he was doing.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21578]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23396
Joined: 8/16/03
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97386]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64602
Joined: 7/13/02
|
Yep. All in cities, and all in large population states.
Apr 5, 2019, 11:23 AM
[ in reply to It's impressive that our founders knew to put the EC in ] |
|
If you know history though, the very same urban/rural demographic (hence political) divide that exists today existed back then. At our founding, rural agrarian interests differed greatly from urban/industrial interests. Back then the rural farmers had the power in numbers to make a true democracy into a republican (anti-federalist) state.
Power was to be kept as much as possible in the states, and federally, power was to be equally distributed among the states, not a total count of the popular vote. If that had happened, we would have failed long before the Civil War. Our founders knew the dangers inherent in a democracy. The only way we could be "democratic" was to have popular elections among the states, but function as a republic of states and not as one federal entity. The French overthrew their monarchy at about the same time as we founded our republic. The key difference was the French did not address the tyranny of the majority, and that's exactly what they got. France disintegrated into the Reign of Terror and eventually you ended up with Napoleon.
All large democracies fail. Always have, and always will. Historically democracies have always thrived in smaller, homogeneous states where people of like political, religious, and social beliefs could govern themselves effectively. But in a large, populous, and diverse nation with many religions, many social beliefs, and diverse political beliefs, democracies ALWAYS fail because you can not make everyone happy when the majority controls policy for all. Disperse that power among 50 states (or 13), and let each state have autonomy in making and establishing their own laws, and you get 13 states with happier people than if one federal government made the laws for all 13 states. Take abortion as an example. It should be a state issue, but isn't. If it were a state issue, you would have states where it is legal, states where it is illegal, and overall you would not have 50% of Americans unhappy about it. You may have a minority in each state unhappy, but a minority of people in each state unhappy one way or another, is better than 50% of everyone in all states combined unhappy about it.
To this day it makes my skin crawl when I hear a President, internet troll, or even a political science professor refer to the United States as a "democracy". A democracy has a centralized government with a popular ("democratic") vote. I can not tell you how many POSC professors at Clemson cited the United States as the lone "exception" to the rule that large democracies always fail. To them I always retorted that we are not a democracy but a republic, a "democratic republic", with republic coming first. Think of democratic as meaning every citizen has a voice and a vote. Think of republic as a functional mechanism of governance, dispersing instead of centralizing power. Understand and combine the two and you understand our founding and our Constitution.
Many a nation has fallen to tyrants that were once "democracies". The republic part is what differentiates the United States from all of the rest. Add to that checks and balances and three branches and you have the bedrock upon which we thrive. And today I have no clue why the 10th Amendment is still even in the Bill of Rights anymore. It was destroyed by the implementation and interpretation of the 14th Amendment so as to be basically worthless.
There was a time when we had political leaders who understood all of what I just typed. That is no longer the case sadly.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2684]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 3393
Joined: 7/3/07
|
Interesting quote by Alexander Hamilton
Apr 5, 2019, 11:24 AM
[ in reply to Ahh...the bane of every large democracy that has failed ] |
|
The primary reason the Electoral College was created was so "that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications". The idea is that we avoid electing a demagogue.
a leader who gains popularity in a democracy by exploiting prejudice and ignorance among the common people, whipping up the passions of the crowd and shutting down reasoned deliberation. Demagogues overturn established norms of political conduct, or promise or threaten to do so.
I wonder what Hamilton would have to say about current office holder. Would he view him as the electoral college's greatest example of success?
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97386]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64602
Joined: 7/13/02
|
Spoken like a true Federalist.
Apr 5, 2019, 12:05 PM
|
|
Many a tyrant has risen to power on the popular vote.
Originally, the electors were chosen by the state legislatures, and only later by popular vote. The states can choose a winner take all result, or apportion them by the popular vote. They are free to do this.
A little more insight:
Preference for Direct Legislative Choice of Electors at the Convention Among the most controversial issues at the Constitutional Convention was the method of selecting the President. The delegates debated this issue on 21 non-consecutive days and required 60 ballots, relating to seven distinct proposals, prior to obtaining consensus on the final provisions (Bowen 189; Slonin 35; Katz 2). Proposals included Congressional choice, state legislative choice, national popular vote, and an Electoral College system whereby Electors within districts of each state would be elected for the purpose of choosing the President (Farrand 21, 68, 80; vol. 1; Farrand 29, 31-32, vol. 2).
Gouverneur Morris’ proposal that the people at large elect the President was defeated by a 9-1 vote, with George Mason of Virginia asserting: “It would be as unnatural to refer the choice of a proper character for a chief Magistrate to the people, as it would to refer a trial of colors to a blind man. The extent of the Country renders it impossible that the people can have the requisite capacity to judge of the respective pretensions of the candidates” (Farrand 29, 31- 32; vol. 2). Later in the Convention, Gouverneur Morris captured a primary motive of those who, like himself, favored popular election as being the preference of the lesser of two evils as compared to election of the President by Congress: “No body had appeared to be satisfied with an appointment by [Congress]. Many were anxious even for an immediate choice by the people” (emphasis supplied) (Farrand 500; vol. 2).
After debating the alternatives, Gouverneur Morris moved to treat the determination of the method of electing the President as “not being yet finally determined,” which passed (Farrand 480; vol. 2). Consequently, the issue was referred to a special committee consisting of one delegate from each state. This committee introduced a plan involving indirect election by
Electors (Farrand 493-94; vol. 2), which was approved and included in the Constitution as signed and ratified. As subsequently modified by the Twelfth Amendment, this plan remains the Electoral College system in effect to date. The Convention’s special committee dictated that the selection of Presidential Electors was to be determined “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” This provision allows the broad discretion of state legislatures to directly choose Electors or popular election in contrast with the previous suggestion to confine the process to the election of members by the House of Representatives (“by the People of the several States” in Article I, Section 2) and senate (“chosen by the Legislature thereof” in Article II, Section 3 of the original Constitution). Though the motion to have state Electors choose the President carried 6-3 when it was first approved, the more favorable vote of 8-2 was returned when the motion specified that Electors should be “chosen by State Legislatures” (Farrand 57-58; vol. 2). This voting data suggests a preference for direct legislative choice, rather than a popular election. This preference is further demonstrated by the provision produced by the special committee allowing state legislatures to exercise full discretion in respect to the selection of Electors. Considering this provision within the context of the final two weeks of the Convention, it is possible to conclude that it was an effort to placate delegates (such as Gouverneur Morris, a member of the special committee) who favored a popular election. Further, outspoken Morris likely influenced the special committee to adopt this broad language as a compromise to provide for one or more states to allow popular election of Electors. In fact, Morris, along with James Wilson, ensured that their home state of Pennsylvania chose their Electors for the first Presidential election by popular vote (McCormick 28). The pressure for direct legislative choice by key delegates like Morris (within the special committee and/or before the general Convention) risked prolonging the contentious Convention debate when a critical and heretofore elusive consensus on an overall final document was at hand.
https://concept.journals.villanova.edu/article/download/282/245/
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93156]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95153
Joined: 12/25/09
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5854]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3673
Joined: 11/18/00
|
Re: States making move to circumvent Electoral College (link)
Apr 5, 2019, 11:44 AM
|
|
I'm all for the country dividing into districts and each district sending a tribute to the capital for a battle royale. The winning district's tribute gets to elect the new leader.
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [80692]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 55786
Joined: 9/13/04
|
I wonder of Hillary had won the EC if we'd even be
Apr 5, 2019, 11:50 AM
|
|
talking about this.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9633]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11380
Joined: 9/10/99
|
Obviously not. The fact that she got pummeled in the EC, I
Apr 5, 2019, 12:16 PM
|
|
think, raised a few more eyebrows. But I think that speaks more to her dependency on the polls to direct her campaigning. She never visited Wisconsin during the campaign (for example).
If things were determined by popular vote - all of the campaigning would be done in the most heavily populated areas - which is kinda why there is an EC...
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97386]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64602
Joined: 7/13/02
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21578]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23396
Joined: 8/16/03
|
Surprised it held on this long. City values will be imposed
Apr 5, 2019, 12:16 PM
|
|
on the countryside and there will be a movement to politically separate. The only reason the countryside will be able to resist is because of the 2nd Amendment, otherwise the tyranny of the majority would be the penultimate step before neo-liberal authoritarianism.
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93156]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95153
Joined: 12/25/09
|
1 down, 37 more to go.***
Apr 5, 2019, 12:25 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 15
| visibility 386
|
|
|