Connecticut to Give their EC to National Popular Winner

[malchior]

Those "wiser men" weren't trying to prevent demagogues like Trump.

Yes, they were, and they even wrote about so we wouldn’t have to guess.

The Senate is a pretty good piece of evidence.

The Senate is yet another element of our government put in place to ensure that Southern states could block action against slavery. Today, its warping effect gives an extremely small minority of Americans a complete veto over legislation. The slow failure of America's political system is in large parts due to the anti-democratic nature of the Senate.

Oh, good grief. You're a caricature. All 13 colonies except Pennsylvania had bicameral legislatures.

You're missing his point. This system is broken because the Senate has too many levers to stop legislation. They are informal rules mostly but they've been breaking down as well. The fact remains that power is clustered in the hands of the few. This isn't rocket science. The system as designed is not big D - democratic. That increases tension. It always amazes me that a system that produced a civil war within a hundred years and has pretty much gone off the rails another 130 years later is held up as some genius creation. The reality is those wise men built a system that worked while they lived and nearly died within a couple generations.

[Fireball]

Those "wiser men" weren't trying to prevent demagogues like Trump.

Yes, they were, and they even wrote about so we wouldn’t have to guess.

The Senate is a pretty good piece of evidence.

The Senate is yet another element of our government put in place to ensure that Southern states could block action against slavery. Today, its warping effect gives an extremely small minority of Americans a complete veto over legislation. The slow failure of America's political system is in large parts due to the anti-democratic nature of the Senate.

Oh, good grief. You're a caricature. All 13 colonies except Pennsylvania had bicameral legislatures.

There's nothing un-democratic about bicameral legislatures. The United States Senate is un-democratic because it is wildly unrepresentative of the population.

[noxiousdog]

Those "wiser men" weren't trying to prevent demagogues like Trump.

Yes, they were, and they even wrote about so we wouldn’t have to guess.

The Senate is a pretty good piece of evidence.

The Senate is yet another element of our government put in place to ensure that Southern states could block action against slavery. Today, its warping effect gives an extremely small minority of Americans a complete veto over legislation. The slow failure of America's political system is in large parts due to the anti-democratic nature of the Senate.

Oh, good grief. You're a caricature. All 13 colonies except Pennsylvania had bicameral legislatures.

You're missing his point. This system is broken because the Senate has too many levers to stop legislation. They are informal rules mostly but they've been breaking down as well. The fact remains that power is clustered in the hands of the few. This isn't rocket science. The system as designed is not big D - democratic. That increases tension. It always amazes me that a system that produced a civil war within a hundred years and has pretty much gone off the rails another 130 years later is held up as some genius creation. The reality is those wise men built a system that worked while they lived and nearly died within a couple generations.

What does that have to do with the design in 1787?

There is no valid argument about changing the system today that should reference what happened in 1787. If a change is needed (and I am very receptive to that argument), then it should be on the merits of the change.

[Fireball]

Those "wiser men" weren't trying to prevent demagogues like Trump.

Yes, they were, and they even wrote about so we wouldn’t have to guess.

The Senate is a pretty good piece of evidence.

The Senate is yet another element of our government put in place to ensure that Southern states could block action against slavery. Today, its warping effect gives an extremely small minority of Americans a complete veto over legislation. The slow failure of America's political system is in large parts due to the anti-democratic nature of the Senate.

Oh, good grief. You're a caricature. All 13 colonies except Pennsylvania had bicameral legislatures.

You're missing his point. This system is broken because the Senate has too many levers to stop legislation. They are informal rules mostly but they've been breaking down as well. The fact remains that power is clustered in the hands of the few. This isn't rocket science. The system as designed is not big D - democratic. That increases tension. It always amazes me that a system that produced a civil war within a hundred years and has pretty much gone off the rails another 130 years later is held up as some genius creation. The reality is those wise men built a system that worked while they lived and nearly died within a couple generations.

They built a system that was designed to overcome the central political cleavage of their time — slavery — by ensuring a deadlock on that issue. That deadlock eventually failed, and a bloody civil war ensued. They never intended to establish a perfect and timeless form of government. The compromises they made to avoid falling apart over the major issue of their time is making the government completely unworkable in ours.

It doesn't have to be like this. We know how to design a responsive, effective, and democratic republican system of government. We've done it many times as we've set up other national governments. Unfortunately, we remain stuck in a failed late-1700s system of government with no apparent way out.

[malchior]

Those "wiser men" weren't trying to prevent demagogues like Trump.

Yes, they were, and they even wrote about so we wouldn’t have to guess.

The Senate is a pretty good piece of evidence.

The Senate is yet another element of our government put in place to ensure that Southern states could block action against slavery. Today, its warping effect gives an extremely small minority of Americans a complete veto over legislation. The slow failure of America's political system is in large parts due to the anti-democratic nature of the Senate.

Oh, good grief. You're a caricature. All 13 colonies except Pennsylvania had bicameral legislatures.

You're missing his point. This system is broken because the Senate has too many levers to stop legislation. They are informal rules mostly but they've been breaking down as well. The fact remains that power is clustered in the hands of the few. This isn't rocket science. The system as designed is not big D - democratic. That increases tension. It always amazes me that a system that produced a civil war within a hundred years and has pretty much gone off the rails another 130 years later is held up as some genius creation. The reality is those wise men built a system that worked while they lived and nearly died within a couple generations.

What does that have to do with the design in 1787?

There is no valid argument about changing the system today that should reference what happened in 1787. If a change is needed (and I am very receptive to that argument), then it should be on the merits of the change.

As I see it - the only references to 1787 (at least on my part) are to try to explain why they don't matter now. The design flaws are baked in by those folks decisions but the argument I'd always say is they don't scale to today due mostly to population clustering. The other stuff is just context about how we got to here.

[Moliere]

You're missing his point. This system is broken because the Senate has too many levers to stop legislation. They are informal rules mostly but they've been breaking down as well. The fact remains that power is clustered in the hands of the few. This isn't rocket science. The system as designed is not big D - democratic. That increases tension. It always amazes me that a system that produced a civil war within a hundred years and has pretty much gone off the rails another 130 years later is held up as some genius creation. The reality is those wise men built a system that worked while they lived and nearly died within a couple generations.

The fact that our government survived a Civil War says something. Also, can you point to another government that has survived, essentially unchanged between 1789 and 2018? You might argue the British government, but the Monarchy has been symbolic for over 100 years.

[malchior]

You're missing his point. This system is broken because the Senate has too many levers to stop legislation. They are informal rules mostly but they've been breaking down as well. The fact remains that power is clustered in the hands of the few. This isn't rocket science. The system as designed is not big D - democratic. That increases tension. It always amazes me that a system that produced a civil war within a hundred years and has pretty much gone off the rails another 130 years later is held up as some genius creation. The reality is those wise men built a system that worked while they lived and nearly died within a couple generations.

They built a system that was designed to overcome the central political cleavage of their time — slavery — by ensuring a deadlock on that issue. That deadlock eventually failed, and a bloody civil war ensued. They never intended to establish a perfect and timeless form of government. The compromises they made to avoid falling apart over the major issue of their time is making the government completely unworkable in ours.

It doesn't have to be like this. We know how to design a responsive, effective, and democratic republican system of government. We've done it many times as we've set up other national governments. Unfortunately, we remain stuck in a failed late-1700s system of government with no apparent way out.

I was more responding to how people always argue this *now*. That these 'wiser men' built a perfect government, etc. In effect, how we are somehow born into some political version of a death cult beholden to our ancestor spirits.

[malchior]

You're missing his point. This system is broken because the Senate has too many levers to stop legislation. They are informal rules mostly but they've been breaking down as well. The fact remains that power is clustered in the hands of the few. This isn't rocket science. The system as designed is not big D - democratic. That increases tension. It always amazes me that a system that produced a civil war within a hundred years and has pretty much gone off the rails another 130 years later is held up as some genius creation. The reality is those wise men built a system that worked while they lived and nearly died within a couple generations.

The fact that our government survived a Civil War says something. Also, can you point to another government that has survived, essentially unchanged between 1789 and 2018? You might argue the British government, but the Monarchy has been symbolic for over 100 years.

Might makes right? Sure that must mean the system design was good. Only a little over a million men died, right?

[noxiousdog]

I was more responding to how people always argue this *now*. That these 'wiser men' built a perfect government, etc. In effect, how we are somehow born into some political version of a death cult beholden to our ancestor spirits.

I think the argument of the Founding Fathers is a bit exaggerated, but as Moliere says it has survived despite the criticisms and doomsaying.

[Kraken]

Nonsense. Trump won and Bush won (but perhaps didn't) under the rules, but the American people as group voted for someone else. There was no true mandate for their agenda.

Nobody was playing a game where we count all the votes, so no one was attempting to get all the votes, and no one was voting based on the notion of producing the most votes nationally. It's an utterly bullshit metric in a system where the popular vote is irrelevant to the outcome. It's not indicative of the "Will of the People(tm)" because people choose to not vote or vote third party because of the EC.

But again, using the popular vote as the measuring stick ENCOURAGES populist demagogues. Which is why wiser men than us went out of their way to prevent it.

Those "wiser men" weren't trying to prevent demagogues like Trump. They were trying to protect the power of slave states and ensure the continuation of slavery in the South. Every compromise that limits democracy in our Constitution, from the Senate to the Electoral College, was in the end driven by the South's desperate struggle to retain chattel slavery in the new nation. Slavery tore our nation apart in the 1800s, and the flaws in our government structure that originate because of it are making America ungovernable today.

I've posted this link at least three times now. Maybe the fourth time will be the charm.

[Holman]

You're missing his point. This system is broken because the Senate has too many levers to stop legislation. They are informal rules mostly but they've been breaking down as well. The fact remains that power is clustered in the hands of the few. This isn't rocket science. The system as designed is not big D - democratic. That increases tension. It always amazes me that a system that produced a civil war within a hundred years and has pretty much gone off the rails another 130 years later is held up as some genius creation. The reality is those wise men built a system that worked while they lived and nearly died within a couple generations.

The fact that our government survived a Civil War says something. Also, can you point to another government that has survived, essentially unchanged between 1789 and 2018? You might argue the British government, but the Monarchy has been symbolic for over 100 years.

I was more responding to how people always argue this *now*. That these 'wiser men' built a perfect government, etc. In effect, how we are somehow born into some political version of a death cult beholden to our ancestor spirits.

I think the argument of the Founding Fathers is a bit exaggerated, but as Moliere says it has survived despite the criticisms and doomsaying.

The Civil War was the crisis that (with the Suffragette movement, itself an heir of the Abolitionist civil rights tradition) most radically altered our sense of what it means to be a citizen.

In 1860 we were still operating by the assumptions of the Founding Fathers: government was understood as government by white males, with poll taxes and literacy tests in place to suppress lower economic access even among whites. The government that *survived* the civil war was still the restricted suffrage government imagined by the Founders, but the America *created* by the Civil War (and the civil rights revolutions that followed over generations) has become increasingly ill-served by that model.

[Zarathud]

Republican urban areas? 12 of 51, yea that sound totally fair.

It's not the Democrats' fault that Republicans court the rural and deplorable vote so hard.

Besides, it's called winning. Surely you see that by now with your nihilistic view that winning is everything.

[RunningMn9]

It doesn't fix the Senate which is the same problem at the core.

I guess we have a disagreement over what the problem is, at its core. I don't think that the Senate is the problem. Not by a long shot.

[RunningMn9]

There is no valid argument about changing the system today that should reference what happened in 1787. If a change is needed (and I am very receptive to that argument), then it should be on the merits of the change.

I can get on board with this - but not if it's based on a hopelessly biased view of what they did and why (ZOMG!! SLAVERY!!!!). This is almost certainly legislation being brought about in response to something that will become MORE likely if it comes to pass. It's reactionary legislation without any awareness of history.

You don't tear down a fence unless you know and understand why it was built.

[malchior]

It doesn't fix the Senate which is the same problem at the core.

I guess we have a disagreement over what the problem is, at its core. I don't think that the Senate is the problem. Not by a long shot.

I disagree isn't really all that constructive when you don't offer an alternative idea. The core as I see it is that the Senate functions as a vetocracy now. Nothing bipartisan can be accomplished...mostly. The exception is that the chamber essentially functions to keep rich folks rich. There is reams of data showing that policy preferences of the elite are the only policies that can make it through Congress and the Senate generally acts as the control point there. The Senate functions this way because there is a strong structural advantage in the R direction. The non-Representational nature mirrors the EC. So wedge issues are used to smokescreen the true work which is doing the business of the extremely wealthy who bankroll everything, get access to write laws, and generally run the whole show. The Senate is a complete nightmare if you care about good governance.

[geezer]

There is no valid argument about changing the system today that should reference what happened in 1787. If a change is needed (and I am very receptive to that argument), then it should be on the merits of the change.

I can get on board with this - but not if it's based on a hopelessly biased view of what they did and why (ZOMG!! SLAVERY!!!!). This is almost certainly legislation being brought about in response to something that will become MORE likely if it comes to pass. It's reactionary legislation without any awareness of history.

You don't tear down a fence unless you know and understand why it was built.

Uh...the idea that the Constitution was greatly influenced by the problem of how to handle slavery is nowhere near "hopelessly biased." I'm not sure I'd say it was THE core issue, but it was A core issue that had to be solved in order to bring the states into agreement. It's completely rational to tie our system of representative government to the slavery question.

[malchior]

There is no valid argument about changing the system today that should reference what happened in 1787. If a change is needed (and I am very receptive to that argument), then it should be on the merits of the change.

I can get on board with this - but not if it's based on a hopelessly biased view of what they did and why (ZOMG!! SLAVERY!!!!). This is almost certainly legislation being brought about in response to something that will become MORE likely if it comes to pass. It's reactionary legislation without any awareness of history.

You don't tear down a fence unless you know and understand why it was built.

Uh...the idea that the Constitution was greatly influenced by the problem of how to handle slavery is nowhere near "hopelessly biased." I'm not sure I'd say it was THE core issue, but it was A core issue that had to be solved in order to bring the states into agreement. It's completely rational to tie our system of representative government to the slavery question.

It had a side effect that it caused the biggest problem years later as the population re-organized itself. There is still no rationale argument that 40 some odd percent of the population controls all legislation in this country right now. It is tearing the nation apart.

[Rip]

Wow, we have accomplished more than any nation on earth. Nothing can be accomplished? Phooey.

The comments about policy are hyperbole. There is legislation that makes both parties happy and there is legislation that both sides unhappy. There is no magical 40% of the people controlling the country.

Saying that is just silly and destroys the entire argument. Hell the same people haven't even been calling the shots in my children's lifetime. They have already lived to see the political dominance in the country flop three times.

[RunningMn9]

Uh...the idea that the Constitution was greatly influenced by the problem of how to handle slavery is nowhere near "hopelessly biased." I'm not sure I'd say it was THE core issue, but it was A core issue that had to be solved in order to bring the states into agreement. It's completely rational to tie our system of representative government to the slavery question.

It's hopelessly biased to be blinded to the fact that the Electoral College had some very specific purposes that had nothing at all to do with slavery. The argument for the Electoral College and against direct election isn't a set of stories that we heard in school. We have sources via things like Federalist No. 68 which lays out Hamilton's argument. We can compromise and say that the Anti-Federalists (primarily the Southern States) had their reasons for supporting the EC, but that doesn't discount or surpass the arguments by the Federalists (who ultimately won the debate).

THE mode of appointment of the Chief Magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of the system, of any consequence, which has escaped without severe censure, or which has received the slightest mark of approbation from its opponents. The most plausible of these, who has appeared in print, has even deigned to admit that the election of the President is pretty well guarded.1 I venture somewhat further, and hesitate not to affirm, that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent. It unites in an eminent degree all the advantages, the union of which was to be wished for.

It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.

Another and no less important desideratum was, that the Executive should be independent for his continuance in office on all but the people themselves. He might otherwise be tempted to sacrifice his duty to his complaisance for those whose favor was necessary to the duration of his official consequence. This advantage will also be secured, by making his re-election to depend on a special body of representatives, deputed by the society for the single purpose of making the important choice.

All these advantages will happily combine in the plan devised by the convention; which is, that the people of each State shall choose a number of persons as electors, equal to the number of senators and representatives of such State in the national government, who shall assemble within the State, and vote for some fit person as President. Their votes, thus given, are to be transmitted to the seat of the national government, and the person who may happen to have a majority of the whole number of votes will be the President. But as a majority of the votes might not always happen to centre in one man, and as it might be unsafe to permit less than a majority to be conclusive, it is provided that, in such a contingency, the House of Representatives shall select out of the candidates who shall have the five highest number of votes, the man who in their opinion may be best qualified for the office.

The process of election affords a moral certainty, 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. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue. And this will be thought no inconsiderable recommendation of the Constitution, by those who are able to estimate the share which the executive in every government must necessarily have in its good or ill administration. Though we cannot acquiesce in the political heresy of the poet who says: "For forms of government let fools contest That which is best administered is best,'' yet we may safely pronounce, that the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration.

The Vice-President is to be chosen in the same manner with the President; with this difference, that the Senate is to do, in respect to the former, what is to be done by the House of Representatives, in respect to the latter.

The appointment of an extraordinary person, as Vice-President, has been objected to as superfluous, if not mischievous. It has been alleged, that it would have been preferable to have authorized the Senate to elect out of their own body an officer answering that description. But two considerations seem to justify the ideas of the convention in this respect. One is, that to secure at all times the possibility of a definite resolution of the body, it is necessary that the President should have only a casting vote. And to take the senator of any State from his seat as senator, to place him in that of President of the Senate, would be to exchange, in regard to the State from which he came, a constant for a contingent vote. The other consideration is, that as the Vice-President may occasionally become a substitute for the President, in the supreme executive magistracy, all the reasons which recommend the mode of election prescribed for the one, apply with great if not with equal force to the manner of appointing the other. It is remarkable that in this, as in most other instances, the objection which is made would lie against the constitution of this State. We have a Lieutenant-Governor, chosen by the people at large, who presides in the Senate, and is the constitutional substitute for the Governor, in casualties similar to those which would authorize the Vice-President to exercise the authorities and discharge the duties of the President.

That's the argument presented by those in favor of ratification.

[malchior]

Wow, we have accomplished more than any nation on earth. Nothing can be accomplished? Phooey.

The comments about policy are hyperbole. There is legislation that makes both parties happy and there is legislation that both sides unhappy. There is no magical 40% of the people controlling the country.

Wrong. But it isn't that nothing can be accomplished. It is that what *can* be accomplished is to further the oligarchy that is eating our Democracy alive.

Edit: There has been subsequent work over the last 4 years that further have shown that the policy preferences of the very wealthy almost always survive whereas the policy preferences of the majority are ignored. At this point it is pretty obvious - the tax legislation was practically a middle finger at the idea of progressive taxation.

Saying that is just silly and destroys the entire argument. Hell the same people haven't even been calling the shots in my children's lifetime. They have already lived to see the political dominance in the country flop three times.

The last 20 years have seen an EC victory twice with well less than 50% of the popular vote. The Senate had a period where it had a massive spike in filibusters until they started to just dismantle that to get stuff done but generally only for non-legislative reasons. They couldn't pass a budget for almost a decade. The Senate refused to consider a President's nomination for the Supreme Court. The Senate "majority" is controlled by about 43% of the population. That number will likely get worse over the next decade. The House may well flip this year but right now due to gerrymandering and voter suppression there is a documented +5% bias for control of the house. So approximately 54% could vote for Democrats and still not get a House majority. It goes on and on. This system has never been this un-balanced. Even pre-Civil War it wasn't this unbalanced. This is not a system that can survive.

[geezer]

Uh...the idea that the Constitution was greatly influenced by the problem of how to handle slavery is nowhere near "hopelessly biased." I'm not sure I'd say it was THE core issue, but it was A core issue that had to be solved in order to bring the states into agreement. It's completely rational to tie our system of representative government to the slavery question.

It's hopelessly biased to be blinded to the fact that the Electoral College had some very specific purposes that had nothing at all to do with slavery. The argument for the Electoral College and against direct election isn't a set of stories that we heard in school. We have sources via things like Federalist No. 68 which lays out Hamilton's argument. We can compromise and say that the Anti-Federalists (primarily the Southern States) had their reasons for supporting the EC, but that doesn't discount or surpass the arguments by the Federalists (who ultimately won the debate).

THE mode of appointment of the Chief Magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of the system, of any consequence, which has escaped without severe censure, or which has received the slightest mark of approbation from its opponents. The most plausible of these, who has appeared in print, has even deigned to admit that the election of the President is pretty well guarded.1 I venture somewhat further, and hesitate not to affirm, that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent. It unites in an eminent degree all the advantages, the union of which was to be wished for.

It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.

Another and no less important desideratum was, that the Executive should be independent for his continuance in office on all but the people themselves. He might otherwise be tempted to sacrifice his duty to his complaisance for those whose favor was necessary to the duration of his official consequence. This advantage will also be secured, by making his re-election to depend on a special body of representatives, deputed by the society for the single purpose of making the important choice.

All these advantages will happily combine in the plan devised by the convention; which is, that the people of each State shall choose a number of persons as electors, equal to the number of senators and representatives of such State in the national government, who shall assemble within the State, and vote for some fit person as President. Their votes, thus given, are to be transmitted to the seat of the national government, and the person who may happen to have a majority of the whole number of votes will be the President. But as a majority of the votes might not always happen to centre in one man, and as it might be unsafe to permit less than a majority to be conclusive, it is provided that, in such a contingency, the House of Representatives shall select out of the candidates who shall have the five highest number of votes, the man who in their opinion may be best qualified for the office.

The process of election affords a moral certainty, 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. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue. And this will be thought no inconsiderable recommendation of the Constitution, by those who are able to estimate the share which the executive in every government must necessarily have in its good or ill administration. Though we cannot acquiesce in the political heresy of the poet who says: "For forms of government let fools contest That which is best administered is best,'' yet we may safely pronounce, that the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration.

The Vice-President is to be chosen in the same manner with the President; with this difference, that the Senate is to do, in respect to the former, what is to be done by the House of Representatives, in respect to the latter.

The appointment of an extraordinary person, as Vice-President, has been objected to as superfluous, if not mischievous. It has been alleged, that it would have been preferable to have authorized the Senate to elect out of their own body an officer answering that description. But two considerations seem to justify the ideas of the convention in this respect. One is, that to secure at all times the possibility of a definite resolution of the body, it is necessary that the President should have only a casting vote. And to take the senator of any State from his seat as senator, to place him in that of President of the Senate, would be to exchange, in regard to the State from which he came, a constant for a contingent vote. The other consideration is, that as the Vice-President may occasionally become a substitute for the President, in the supreme executive magistracy, all the reasons which recommend the mode of election prescribed for the one, apply with great if not with equal force to the manner of appointing the other. It is remarkable that in this, as in most other instances, the objection which is made would lie against the constitution of this State. We have a Lieutenant-Governor, chosen by the people at large, who presides in the Senate, and is the constitutional substitute for the Governor, in casualties similar to those which would authorize the Vice-President to exercise the authorities and discharge the duties of the President.

That's the argument presented by those in favor of ratification.

Of course there were other considerations. Then again, Hamilton mused about a de facto monarch via a lifetime appointment to the presidency, rendering the question somewhat moot . That doesn't change the fact that the question of slavery (as a matter of population perhaps more than morality) directly informed just about every instance where popular representation was a factor.

What's the point again, though?

[em2nought]

It's not the Democrats' fault that Republicans court the rural and deplorable vote so hard.

If you ignore the rural population you'll end up like Thailand with martial law or worse. Your food doesn't come from the grocery store. lmao

...and care to guess which side most of the folks that transport your food would be on? Better hurry up with those vehicles without drivers.

[Zarathud]

It's not the Democrats' fault that Republicans court the rural and deplorable vote so hard.

If you ignore the rural population you'll end up like Thailand with martial law or worse. Your food doesn't come from the grocery store. lmao

My father's family were farmers, but farm subsidies are America's largest corporate welfare system.

It’s a common misconception that most American farms are small, family enterprises. But those family farms you might imagine have rapidly disappeared due to widespread consolidation since the 1930s and the near-constant flow of taxpayer money in the form of subsidies.

In fact, in the last few decades, large-scale farms with annual sales over $1 million have roughly tripled. And, according to USDA data, the average farm income in 2014 was 77 percent higher than that of the average U.S. household.

You know that something stinks when Congress hides the data:

In 2000, Congress passed a law that prohibited the disclosure of information about farm subsidies and their recipients, leaving taxpayers with little information about where funds are spent. It helps to have friends in high places.

Even the conservative National Review has been criticizing the proposed 2018 farm subsidies and Trump's pandering to the farm states.

[Rip]

Wow, we have accomplished more than any nation on earth. Nothing can be accomplished? Phooey.

The comments about policy are hyperbole. There is legislation that makes both parties happy and there is legislation that both sides unhappy. There is no magical 40% of the people controlling the country.

Wrong. But it isn't that nothing can be accomplished. It is that what *can* be accomplished is to further the oligarchy that is eating our Democracy alive.

Wait, that article is on America..... Are you saying America rules the world?

Oligarchy isn't ruling the country, they didn't elect Trump. Uneducated folk did, remember. Most of the well to do and well educated voted for Hillary, including 90+% of the wealthy Hollywood all the music moguls as well as pretty much all of the silicon valley billionaires. It is the unwashed masses that swung this election.

Edit: There has been subsequent work over the last 4 years that further have shown that the policy preferences of the very wealthy almost always survive whereas the policy preferences of the majority are ignored. At this point it is pretty obvious - the tax legislation was practically a middle finger at the idea of progressive taxation.

Saying that is just silly and destroys the entire argument. Hell the same people haven't even been calling the shots in my children's lifetime. They have already lived to see the political dominance in the country flop three times.

The last 20 years have seen an EC victory twice with well less than 50% of the popular vote. The Senate had a period where it had a massive spike in filibusters until they started to just dismantle that to get stuff done but generally only for non-legislative reasons. They couldn't pass a budget for almost a decade. The Senate refused to consider a President's nomination for the Supreme Court. The Senate "majority" is controlled by about 43% of the population. That number will likely get worse over the next decade. The House may well flip this year but right now due to gerrymandering and voter suppression there is a documented +5% bias for control of the house. So approximately 54% could vote for Democrats and still not get a House majority. It goes on and on. This system has never been this un-balanced. Even pre-Civil War it wasn't this unbalanced. This is not a system that can survive.

I don't think the issue will get worse. Quite the opposite. People are fleeing the most populous states for some of the smaller ones.

The state by state data show where people are “moving in.” Ranked, they are:

1.Vermont
2.Oregon
3.Idaho
4.Nevada
5.South Dakota
6.Washington
7.South Carolina
8.North Carolina
9.Colorado
10.Alabama
While North Carolina and South Carolina buck the trend of westward movement, only Vermont, at number one, is an exception to the rule people are staying in the Northwest.

The states that are losing people as they move away are almost exclusively in the Northeast or the Rust Belt. The “moving out” states, according to the survey:

1.Illinois
2.New Jersey
3.New York
4.Connecticut
5.Kansas
6.Massachusetts
7.Ohio
8.Kentucky
9.Utah
10.Wisconsin

Among the major reasons for the migrations are economic ones. According to Michael Stoll, economist and professor in the Department of Public Policy at the University of California, Los Angeles:

This year’s data reflects longer-term trends of movement to the western and southern states, especially to those where housing costs are relatively lower, climates are more temperate and job growth has been at or above the national average, among other factors. We’re also seeing continued migration to the Pacific Northwest and Mountain West as young professionals and retirees leave California.

The old saying “Go West, young man” no longer seems to apply.

https://247wallst.com/economy/2018/01/0 ... d-leaving/

[RunningMn9]

What's the point again, though?

The point was that yelling "Slavery!!" as a reason to abolish the Electoral College is dubious in the context of their explanation for why the Electoral College exists (an explanation that doesn't mention slavery once). This doesn't suggest that there are components (particularly within the South) that viewed the Electoral College as a self-defense mechanism for slavery. Madison certainly was aware that the Southern States would likely not have agreed to direct election by popular vote due to the slave issue, but that was analysis after the fact - and not given as a reason for the idea in the first place, nor was that part of the argument made to win support for it. Multiple Founding Fathers were on record at the time noting primary concerns that had to do with corruption, foreign manipulation, and the threat of populist demagoguery, without any mention of the slavery issue.

It's not like the Founding Fathers weren't well aware of the history of direct democracy and its failures.

[Fireball]

It’s an exaggeration to say that electing the President by popular vote is the same as “direct democracy.” Direct democracy is the nonsense you see in some states, particularly California, where voters can directly pass legislation (which often cannot be repealed by the legislature) through the ballot.

Directly-elected executives are still professional representatives chosen by voters to act on their behalf. The difference between direct and representational democracy is that level of abstraction between the electorate and policymaking.

We know a lot more about designing effective government structures today than we did in the 1780s. We are also far more concerned with our government reflecting the will of the entire people as opposed to a self-selected elite. There has been a great deal of experimentation with different forms of parliamentary government, and from that experimentation it would not be hard to design a better system of government than the one we have today: one that better represents the political opinions of the population as a whole, that is resilient against demoagogic forces, that is simpler and more capable of acting.

Absent that, we can at least address the fact that Americans today don’t share the same political values as the Founders when it comes to whose voices should count when making decisions by changing the system to reflect our values. After all, America is our nation, not theirs.

[LordMortis]

You don't tear down a fence unless you know and understand why it was built.

I'm not sure I agree with that, if you don't have certainty as to why it was built then if you have a lick of sense you better damned well study and prepare for the consequences of its removal.

I disagree isn't really all that constructive when you don't offer an alternative idea.

Why do people say that?

[Unagi]

You don't tear down a fence unless you know and understand why it was built.

I'm not sure I agree with that, if you don't have certainty as to why it was built then if you have a lick of sense you better damned well study and prepare for the consequences of its removal.

Wait, aren't you both saying identical things here? Wouldn't that mean you DO agree with it?

[RunningMn9]

You don't tear down a fence unless you know and understand why it was built.

I'm not sure I agree with that, if you don't have certainty as to why it was built then if you have a lick of sense you better damned well study and prepare for the consequences of its removal.

Wait, aren't you both saying identical things here? Wouldn't that mean you DO agree with it?

That's what I was going to say.

I should have said "until" rather than "unless".

[Jeff V]

We are also far more concerned with our government reflecting the will of the entire people as opposed to a self-selected elite.

We are? Then why do we have a government that ignores the will of the people and focuses on further enriching the elite at the expense of the common man?

[LordMortis]

You don't tear down a fence unless you know and understand why it was built.

I'm not sure I agree with that, if you don't have certainty as to why it was built then if you have a lick of sense you better damned well study and prepare for the consequences of its removal.

Wait, aren't you both saying identical things here? Wouldn't that mean you DO agree with it?

That's what I was going to say.

I should have said "until" rather than "unless".

I don't need to know a farmer put up a fence to direct a cattle drive 150 years ago but I ought to understand that a fence a farmer put to direct a cattle drive 150 years ago is acting as en effective deterrent to keep my ducks from wandering off to the neighbor's yard where he raises fox for their fur. If I don't examine this phenomena before I rip the long antiquated cattle drive fence down, then I'm liable to find myself sans ducks, something the cattle owners could have given two shits about.

[coopasonic]

We are also far more concerned with our government reflecting the will of the entire people as opposed to a self-selected elite.

We are? Then why do we have a government that ignores the will of the people and focuses on further enriching the elite at the expense of the common man?

Because the elite have all the money and enough of the rest of us don't know any better.

[RunningMn9]

I don't need to know a farmer put up a fence to direct a cattle drive 150 years ago but I ought to understand that a fence a farmer put to direct a cattle drive 150 years ago is acting as en effective deterrent to keep my ducks from wandering off to the neighbor's yard where he raises fox for their fur. If I don't examine this phenomena before I rip the long antiquated cattle drive fence down, then I'm liable to find myself sans ducks, something the cattle owners could have given two shits about.

You are thinking way too hard about an old adage.

[El Guapo]

I definitely support the EC popular vote compact. I do have a lot of practical questions, though. If you have states with a 270 vote threshold, so the popular compact goes into effect, presumably that goes away if a state withdraws and brings it under the 270 vote threshold, right? So, if you have a situation where it looks more likely that one candidate will win the EC threshold but possibly fall short on the popular vote, what's to stop a state from repealing their membership in the compact the day before the election? Or possibly even the day after?

[Unagi]

You don't tear down a fence unless you know and understand why it was built.

I'm not sure I agree with that, if you don't have certainty as to why it was built then if you have a lick of sense you better damned well study and prepare for the consequences of its removal.

Wait, aren't you both saying identical things here? Wouldn't that mean you DO agree with it?

That's what I was going to say.

I should have said "until" rather than "unless".

I don't need to know a farmer put up a fence to direct a cattle drive 150 years ago but I ought to understand that a fence a farmer put to direct a cattle drive 150 years ago is acting as en effective deterrent to keep my ducks from wandering off to the neighbor's yard where he raises fox for their fur. If I don't examine this phenomena before I rip the long antiquated cattle drive fence down, then I'm liable to find myself sans ducks, something the cattle owners could have given two shits about.

Agreed, got that.

[Unagi]

I definitely support the EC popular vote compact. I do have a lot of practical questions, though. If you have states with a 270 vote threshold, so the popular compact goes into effect, presumably that goes away if a state withdraws and brings it under the 270 vote threshold, right? So, if you have a situation where it looks more likely that one candidate will win the EC threshold but possibly fall short on the popular vote, what's to stop a state from repealing their membership in the compact the day before the election? Or possibly even the day after?

Kinda maybe I don't know if I care.

Red Or Blue.

Let a state join and leave this pact, if they think the PV is in their favor or not.... in some ways - that's kinda neat.

[Unagi]

i.e. A state may say... We are more powerful if we invoke the PV - or it may decide it's better off being all EC about it. /shrug.

[RunningMn9]

What better system than one that no one knows what the system is, and one which can change at any time?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[The Meal]

Speaking with an educated co-worker today, and he had some interesting thoughts on modifying our current system of representation.

His first idea, and one I could really get behind was predicated on the fact that with fewer representatives it doesn't take too significant of financial contributions from a small number of deep-pocketed parties-of-interest to affect things to their benefit. So instead, let's limit the number of constituents covered by a member of the House of Representatives to a number like 30,000. Sure we've radically grown the number of Reps, but we're in a technological era which has tackled many aspects of large-scale communication. And with 300,000,000/30,000 = 10,000 members of the House, it's going to be significantly tougher to "buy" influence.

His second idea, and one that requires more noodling on my part, was that you'd need to also open up the number of Senators per state. He tossed out, arbitrarily, the number 5. His idea is also predicated on a dissolution of our de facto two party system. He'd fill those 250 seats by a national vote by party, with lots of inter-party horse trading going on to ultimately determine the five senators in each state (with appropriate party-based percentage representation for the country as a whole). This is a bit too radical for my walnut-sized brain to wrap around, and I'm not sure how it really breaks up the senator-for-life paradigm in which we're currently living. (Also has some additional issues to be addressed such as, how do we break up the de facto two-party system, how do you allocate the number of positions to be voted on for each state on any given year, etc.).

None of this strictly gets at the presidential elections or the electoral college (in fact, it generally maintains the EC's connection to the House of Representatives, but at a more meaningful representational scale). Shooting from the hip, but give each district one EC vote and each state 5 general EC votes (allocated as the state decides) and you've sort of compromised to something closer to a true popular vote.

The obvious downside to all these additional congress positions is that there's a lot more financial friction in the system. Each position would necessarily be paid less and overall require lots more infrastructure. And who wants to pay for that?

But a fun thought experiment.

[em2nought]

The obvious downside to all these additional congress positions is that there's a lot more financial friction in the system. Each position would necessarily be paid less and overall require lots more infrastructure. And who wants to pay for that?

But a fun thought experiment.

Maybe you don't pay them, maybe they have to have a regular job in their respective states and skype to DC. If they can only serve one term every decade then no need to campaign so they should be able to hold a separate job. Maybe they need a set SAT score too, and to have had a semester of some kind of American Studies in college. Maybe a year or two of some kind of national or humanitarian service as a requirement too.