The competence of 'We, the people'.

[Torus34]

'We, the people' are considered competent to sit in judgment of a fellow American in criminal proceedings where our decision may result in such an extreme action as execution. That's a heavy responsibility. Yet, the framers of the Constitution of the United States of America did not consider we, the people, worthy of the trust in selecting members of the upper house. Nor, for that matter, for the selection of a president.* The Constitution, as written, permitted the states to decide who among we, the people, could vote in a national election. By and large, voting was restricted to male property owners. We began as a nation whose government was selected from the elite by the elite, not the common folk.

Today, our political parties have become the court of the elite and decide who will run for office and often, through gerrymandering and other machinations, who shall win. The power of we, the people, is severely limited in the republic of the United States of America. We, the people are permitted to exercise our power downward against one of our own, but not upward.

Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.

* The Electoral College is, as far as is known to this writer, unique among constitutionally-defined national governments.

 

[it's just me]

'We, the people' are considered competent to sit in judgment of a fellow American in criminal proceedings where our decision may result in such an extreme action as execution. That's a heavy responsibility. Yet, the framers of the Constitution of the United States of America did not consider we, the people, worthy of the trust in selecting members of the upper house. Nor, for that matter, for the selection of a president.* The Constitution, as written, permitted the states to decide who among we, the people, could vote in a national election. By and large, voting was restricted to male property owners. We began as a nation whose government was selected from the elite by the elite, not the common folk.

Today, our political parties have become the court of the elite and decide who will run for office and often, through gerrymandering and other machinations, who shall win. The power of we, the people, is severely limited in the republic of the United States of America. We, the people are permitted to exercise our power downward against one of our own, but not upward.

Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.

* The Electoral College is, as far as is known to this writer, unique among constitutionally-defined national governments.

There is a reason for the EC if you would bother to look into it and be honest enough to admit it instead of parroting the party line.

 

[Torus34]

There is a reason for the EC if you would bother to look into it and be honest enough to admit it instead of parroting the party line.

Hi!

Thank you for the implied assumption regarding my honesty.

There are a number of reasons available, depending upon the slant/spin of the reason-giver. The original Constitution insulates the selection of the Electors from the votes of 'we, the people'. They are selected by the politically elite. The Constitution itself spells out the selection process.

Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.

 

[it's just me]

Hi!

There are a number of reasons available, depending upon the slant of the reason-giver. The original Constitution insulates the selection of the Electors from the votes of 'we, the people. They are selected by the politically elite. The Constitution itself spells out the selection process.

Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.

No, the original Constitution sought to give everybody a say, not just high population centers.

 

[Torus34]

No, the original Constitution sought to give everybody a say, not just high population centers.

Hi!

An interesting comment, though not relevant to the point of the OP. Curiously, the Electoral College system provides some voters, such as those in rural states, over three times the 'force' in their votes as those from the large, big-city states.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

There is a reason for the EC if you would bother to look into it and be honest enough to admit it instead of parroting the party line.

The party line for the GOP with the EC is simple: “We can’t win nationally anymore”.

 

[Ikari]

'We, the people' are considered competent to sit in judgment of a fellow American in criminal proceedings where our decision may result in such an extreme action as execution. That's a heavy responsibility. Yet, the framers of the Constitution of the United States of America did not consider we, the people, worthy of the trust in selecting members of the upper house. Nor, for that matter, for the selection of a president.* The Constitution, as written, permitted the states to decide who among we, the people, could vote in a national election. By and large, voting was restricted to male property owners. We began as a nation whose government was selected from the elite by the elite, not the common folk.

Today, our political parties have become the court of the elite and decide who will run for office and often, through gerrymandering and other machinations, who shall win. The power of we, the people, is severely limited in the republic of the United States of America. We, the people are permitted to exercise our power downward against one of our own, but not upward.

Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.

* The Electoral College is, as far as is known to this writer, unique among constitutionally-defined national governments.

I'm not necessarily opposed to the Electoral College, I do think that there needs to be something that prevents the Republic from being dominated by the large populated states and gives more accounting to the rural America. This was to be a Republic, and the States matter as well. The EC is the compromise between the Popular vote and the States, much like the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Furthermore, I think that faithless electors should have been an integral part of the equation, though the recent SCOTUS decision has all but destroyed that.

There's Maine and Nebraska that split up their EC votes by congressional district, so they are not winner-take-all States. In this instance, which ever candidate wins a congressional district gets the EC from that district that the overall State winner gets the 2 Senate EC votes. Splitting in this way will, then, more closely start to resemble with overall popular vote if all 50 States did it while still keeping the EC intact and allowing each State to still have 2 EC's for the State. It's a possible way of doing it, I think likely more achievable than removing the EC itself.

But more than the EC, I think the major problem is what you outlined with Party Power. The Republocrats have been in charge long enough that they've been able to rig the system against real political competition and thus remove the People from the equation. All they have to do is get us to hate each other so much that each election cycle we'll accept the "lesser of two evils". Their power is secure, the particular sides of the Republocrats merely teeter-totter into and out of power. But their main push regardless is for bigger, more intrusive, more powerful government. So it doesn't matter too much which one is in power because their overall goal is the same.

The winner-take-all aspect of the EC certainly does give some shelter to the two-party system, but the rules, regulations, and rigging of the political game is what has cemented Republocrat rule. And so long as enough people keep buying into the faux-dichotomy, it's not going to change.

 

[ttwtt78640]

'We, the people' are considered competent to sit in judgment of a fellow American in criminal proceedings where our decision may result in such an extreme action as execution. That's a heavy responsibility. Yet, the framers of the Constitution of the United States of America did not consider we, the people, worthy of the trust in selecting members of the upper house. Nor, for that matter, for the selection of a president.* The Constitution, as written, permitted the states to decide who among we, the people, could vote in a national election. By and large, voting was restricted to male property owners. We began as a nation whose government was selected from the elite by the elite, not the common folk.

Today, our political parties have become the court of the elite and decide who will run for office and often, through gerrymandering and other machinations, who shall win. The power of we, the people, is severely limited in the republic of the United States of America. We, the people are permitted to exercise our power downward against one of our own, but not upward.

Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.

* The Electoral College is, as far as is known to this writer, unique among constitutionally-defined national governments.

What you say is generally true, but coupled with the clear understanding that the powers of the federal government were (intended to be) limited to those few specified (enumerated) by the Constitution. The increased concern over (s)election of federal government officials is in large part due to their ever increasing power over the affairs of the average citizen.

 

[it's just me]

The party line for the GOP with the EC is simple: “We can’t win nationally anymore”.

The party line for the Jackass party: "We want to turn the rest of the country into California and New York". We see how well that's working out.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

The party line for the Jackass party: "We want to turn the rest of the country into California and New York".

Well, listen, I get that dying of an opioid addiction in the middle of a rural redstate is slightly more glamorous than becoming a cultural and economic engine, but that’s not the point on the table.

If the country decided it wants a potus who wishes to push policies that move the country in that direction, that’s how this stuff works. We get the government we want, or at least we should.

 

[it's just me]

Well, listen, I get that dying of an opioid addiction in the middle of a rural redstate is slightly more glamorous than becoming a cultural and economic engine, but that’s not the point on the table.

If the country decided it wants a potus who wishes to push policies that move the country in that direction, that’s how this stuff works. We get the government we want, or at least we should.

So you think dying from heat stroke in a third world craphole like California because they couldn't be bothered to plan on the fact that solar panels dont work when it's dark is the way you want to go? One thing about rural red states is that they dont have junkies and bums crapping on the sidewalk, that's a real cultural engine there.

 

[Torus34]

I'm not necessarily opposed to the Electoral College, I do think that there needs to be something that prevents the Republic from being dominated by the large populated states and gives more accounting to the rural America. This was to be a Republic, and the States matter as well. The EC is the compromise between the Popular vote and the States, much like the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Furthermore, I think that faithless electors should have been an integral part of the equation, though the recent SCOTUS decision has all but destroyed that.

There's Maine and Nebraska that split up their EC votes by congressional district, so they are not winner-take-all States. In this instance, which ever candidate wins a congressional district gets the EC from that district that the overall State winner gets the 2 Senate EC votes. Splitting in this way will, then, more closely start to resemble with overall popular vote if all 50 States did it while still keeping the EC intact and allowing each State to still have 2 EC's for the State. It's a possible way of doing it, I think likely more achievable than removing the EC itself.

But more than the EC, I think the major problem is what you outlined with Party Power. The Republocrats [sic]have been in charge long enough that they've been able to rig the system against real political competition and thus remove the People from the equation. All they have to do is get us to hate each other so much that each election cycle we'll accept the "lesser of two evils". Their power is secure, the particular sides of the Republocrats [sic] merely teeter-totter into and out of power. But their main push regardless is for bigger, more intrusive, more powerful government. So it doesn't matter too much which one is in power because their overall goal is the same.

The winner-take-all aspect of the EC certainly does give some shelter to the two-party system, but the rules, regulations, and rigging of the political game is what has cemented Republocrat [sic] rule. And so long as enough people keep buying into the faux-dichotomy, it's not going to change.

Thank you for taking time to provide an extensive response. My over-riding concern, far beyond the present presidential election, is the possibility of the United States of America evolving ['evolving' carefully selected,] into a single-party nation. The past 100 years have seen a number of instances. Poland and Hungary, not to mention Turkey and Russia, stand as modern examples.

A basic problem in republics is the distribution of power to select the federal government among the several states. In the US, it tends to become a city/country issue. It should be noted that any, repeat, any attempt to level the playing field among the states will un-level the power of the individual citizen's vote. There is no 'win-win' possible.

Regards, stay safe 'n well. Thank you again for the post.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

So you think dying from heat stroke in a third world craphole like California because they couldn't be bothered to plan on the fact that solar panels dont work when it's dark is the way you want to go? One thing about rural red states is that they dont have junkies and bums crapping on the sidewalk, that's a real cultural engine there.

That’s because a great many rural states don’t spend money on infrastructure and thus don’t have any sidewalks.

If you removed Ca from the country tomorrow the impact would be dramatic and disastrous for the nation. If we removed even 2-3 red states other than Texas the only difference anyone would notice is that suddenly it’s easier and cheaper to get opioids.

 

[Torus34]

No, the original Constitution sought to give everybody a say, not just high population centers.

Hi!

Women? Slaves? Please cite.

Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.

 

[ataraxia]

The party line for the Jackass party: "We want to turn the rest of the country into California and New York". We see how well that's working out.

I’m not sure having it all look like rural Alabama is a good alternative.

 

[Ikari]

Thank you for taking time to provide an extensive response. My over-riding concern, far beyond the present presidential election, is the possibility of the United States of America evolving ['evolving' carefully selected,] into a single-party nation. The past 100 years have seen a number of instances. Poland and Hungary, not to mention Turkey and Russia, stand as modern examples.

A basic problem in republics is the distribution of power to select the federal government among the several states. In the US, it tends to become a city/country issue. It should be noted that any, repeat, any attempt to level the playing field among the states will un-level the power of the individual citizen's vote. There is no 'win-win' possible.

Regards, stay safe 'n well. Thank you again for the post.

We are already essentially a single party nation. Which is why I use the term Republocrat, it's to show that there's no real difference between the sides of the Oligarchy. The moment the Republocrats were able to freeze out political competition and isolate the People from any effect on the system, we began our move to a single-party nation.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Thank you for taking time to provide an extensive response. My over-riding concern, far beyond the present presidential election, is the possibility of the United States of America evolving ['evolving' carefully selected,] into a single-party nation. The past 100 years have seen a number of instances. Poland and Hungary, not to mention Turkey and Russia, stand as modern examples.

A basic problem in republics is the distribution of power to select the federal government among the several states. In the US, it tends to become a city/country issue. It should be noted that any, repeat, any attempt to level the playing field among the states will un-level the power of the individual citizen's vote. There is no 'win-win' possible.

Regards, stay safe 'n well. Thank you again for the post.

It’s the EC that keeps us as a two party nation. A one person = one vote system for the national office of president would suddenly be opened up to policies and messaging vs targeted county demographics to “tilt” the election. The tribalism would ratchet down because it’s not in either party’s best interest to just play to a base. They gotta govern. All of us.

Whcih means we are now open to human beings NOT tethered to the GOP and the Dems.

We need to get money out of politics and challenge our assumptions about what it will look like when we no longer practice performative democracy where our presidential is concerned.

 

[Torus34]

We are already essentially a single party nation. Which is why I use the term Republocrat, it's to show that there's no real difference between the sides of the Oligarchy. The moment the Republocrats were able to freeze out political competition and isolate the People from any effect on the system, we began our move to a single-party nation.

Hi!

Sorry, I didn't initially catch your portmanteau! Though both parties have been busily entrenching a professional political elite, disagreements between them have provided us with a bit of relief from single party rule. The large number of party vs. party court cases serves as an index. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is not all that well insulated from 'packing' with party loyalists. Many Americans, from what I see posted on political sites such as this one, seem blissfully unaware of the greater implication of their political prejudices and the relative fragility of our federal Constitution.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

[Torus34]

It’s the EC that keeps us as a two party nation. A one person = one vote system for the national office of president would suddenly be opened up to policies and messaging vs targeted county demographics to “tilt” the election. The tribalism would ratchet down because it’s not in either party’s best interest to just play to a base. They gotta govern. All of us.

Whcih means we are now open to human beings NOT tethered to the GOP and the Dems.

We need to get money out of politics and challenge our assumptions about what it will look like when we no longer practice performative democracy where our presidential is concerned.

Hi!

Thank you for the response.

May I suggest that either a selection of the president by strict popular vote [democracy] or by the EC [republic] does little more than define the battlefield rules under which the two political parties wage their struggle for supremacy?

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

[Ikari]

Hi!

Sorry, I didn't initially catch your portmanteau! Though both parties have been busily entrenching a professional political elite, disagreements between them have provided us with a bit of relief from single party rule. The large number of party vs. party court cases serves as an index. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is not all that well insulated from 'packing' with party loyalists. Many Americans, from what I see posted on political sites such as this one, seem blissfully unaware of the greater implication of their political prejudices and the relative fragility of our federal Constitution.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

I have never been ok with the Court having become a partisan game. I think it undercuts the Republic greatly, but that's what they're going to do. I think that between the branches of the Republocrats, there are a lot of different words and on some level there is still some differences in policy they want to achieve. But in the end, their overall goal is for Big Government, Big Spending, Big Deficit, Big Brother, Corporate State, New Aristocracy fascism. So they say different things, they have a few topics where they are different and they play to those topics so that the People will continue to think they are different. But their overall goal is the same.

The Republic and Constitution have always been fragile. It requires an informed, intelligent, and participating people to keep. Franklin said "It's a Republic, if you can keep it". From the get-go it was quite clear that through indifference, through intellectual laziness, through indoctrination to Party that the Republic could be lost. I believe we're well on that slope already, and the convergence of the two-parties into one shows just how far down that path we actually are.

“I apprehend no danger to our country from a foreign foe. Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence, I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants, and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing. Make them intelligent, and they will be vigilant; give them the means of detecting the wrong, and they will apply the remedy.”
― Daniel Webster

 

[Torus34]

I have never been ok with the Court having become a partisan game. I think it undercuts the Republic greatly, but that's what they're going to do. I think that between the branches of the Republocrats, there are a lot of different words and on some level there is still some differences in policy they want to achieve. But in the end, their overall goal is for Big Government, Big Spending, Big Deficit, Big Brother, Corporate State, New Aristocracy fascism. So they say different things, they have a few topics where they are different and they play to those topics so that the People will continue to think they are different. But their overall goal is the same.

The Republic and Constitution have always been fragile. It requires an informed, intelligent, and participating people to keep. Franklin said "It's a Republic, if you can keep it". From the get-go it was quite clear that through indifference, through intellectual laziness, through indoctrination to Party that the Republic could be lost. I believe we're well on that slope already, and the convergence of the two-parties into one shows just how far down that path we actually are.

“I apprehend no danger to our country from a foreign foe. Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence, I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants, and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing. Make them intelligent, and they will be vigilant; give them the means of detecting the wrong, and they will apply the remedy.”
― Daniel Webster

Hi!

I've got to be elsewhere now. May I leave you with this? 'This is the way our country ends, not with a bang but a whimper.'

We may well forge our own chains from our prejudices.

Sincere regards!

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Hi!

Thank you for the response.

May I suggest that either a selection of the president by strict popular vote [democracy] or by the EC [republic] does little more than define the battlefield rules under which the two political parties wage their struggle for supremacy?

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

Yes. You may.

You too!

 

[it's just me]

I’m not sure having it all look like rural Alabama is a good alternative.

People dont crap on the sidewalk in rural Alabama.

 

[it's just me]

That’s because a great many rural states don’t spend money on infrastructure and thus don’t have any sidewalks.

If you removed Ca from the country tomorrow the impact would be dramatic and disastrous for the nation. If we removed even 2-3 red states other than Texas the only difference anyone would notice is that suddenly it’s easier and cheaper to get opioids.

You don't know what you're talking about, on any score.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

You don't know what you're talking about, on any score.

Despite your piercing rebuttal that cut to the bone, I think I’m gonna stand firm on my original take.