Time for direct democracy - end electorial college?[W:193]

[haymarket]

There is no right to vote in the constitution. Only amendments that give reason they cant stop you from voting.

First - all amendments are official parts of the US Constitution.

Second - five of those specifically use the language RIGHT TO VOTE or a slight variation of it.

 

[mlsj2012]

A popular vote becomes nothing more than a vigilante committee for big cities and densely populated states to control the natural resources of America. Our Founding Fathers were wise to institute this checks and balances to keep sparsely populated states and areas as part of the over all mix of our nation, and to give them a real say in the election of nationally held offices. How much better of a cross culture representation than could influence an election than the 11 toss up states for this election. These states truly represent a melting pot of not only nationalities, but vast panoramic and sparsely populated lands as well as densely populated areas.

I live in a non-toss up state, but my vote STILL counts. The wrong candidate will surely get elected when mass numbers of people stop voting because they think their vote doesn't count, even if they live in non-toss up states. When we take the attitude that a vote doesn't count, that is when vigilante justice will reign supreme in our land. Go to the poles and vote. It is your right as a United States citizen, and it is your privilege. The electoral college has been working just fine and doesn't need fixing, contrary to what Romney did at the Republican convention.

 

[haymarket]

Direct democracy= majoritarian rule. Bad.

Direct democracy DOES NOT MEAN majority rule. Never has.

 

[haymarket]

The electoral college has been working just fine and doesn't need fixing, contrary to what Romney did at the Republican convention.

And what is your standard and what is your verifiable proof for this claim?

 

[iliveonramen]

I'm tired of politicians just campaigning and pandering to a handful of swing votes. It's ridiculous. It's also ridiculous for individuals in deep red or blue states to know their vote doesn't matter at all. Get rid of the electorial college. It's outlived it's usefulness

 

[MadLib]

We should keep the electoral college. I do not like the idea of New York,California and a handful of other densely populated states being able to screw the rest of the country.This is why our forefathers went with the electoral college.

I don't like the idea of some people's vote not counting at ALL because of the Electoral College.

Which do you think is worse?

 

[MadLib]

The Electoral College is one of my LEAST favorite aspects about government. It's medieval. It was predicated on the idea that people aren't smart enough to pick their own leaders, a fascistic idea in and of itself, and that somehow elected officials are better than people. Keep in mind that it was a compromise between the Federalists, who wanted Congress to vote for the President; and the Anti-Federalists, who wanted a direct popular election. Because of winner-take-all, the minority votes in some states have ZERO value. It's time to trash this undemocratic system and go for popular elections.

 

[MadLib]

Every single vote counts now.

Wrong.

A Republican who votes for Romney in California will basically be throwing his vote in the garbage can.

It is possible that Romney would win the popular vote but Obama would win the electoral vote. Even though I support Obama I don't want him to win that way.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Direct democracy DOES NOT MEAN majority rule. Never has.

Direct Democracy is defined as a majority rule. I mean the most votes for one thing wins, you need a majority for that to happen. The losers were the minority.


You do understand how direct democracy works right?

 

[haymarket]

Direct Democracy is defined as a majority rule. I mean the most votes for one thing wins, you need a majority for that to happen. The losers were the minority.


You do understand how direct democracy works right?

NO. YOu are absolutely incorrect. Here is a plethora of definitions of DIRECT DEMOCRACY for you. If these are not enough I will try to find a myriad of more definitions:

Web definitions

Direct democracy, classically termed pure democracy, is a form of democracy and a theory of civics in which sovereignty is lodged in the assembly of all citizens who choose to participate. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy

The history of direct democracy amongst non-indigenous peoples in the United States dates from the 1630s in the New England Colonies. Some New England town meetings still carry on that tradition.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Democracy_(history_in_US)

System or process that depends on the voice of the people (and not representatives), usually through referendums or initiatives, to make public policy decisions.
ThisNation.com--Glossary

A form of democracy in which political power is exercised by the citizens without representatives acting of their behalf.
Glossary

Literally rule of the people; as interpreted in Athens, all decisions emanated from popular assembly without intermediation of elected representatives. (p. 130)
occawlonline.pearsoned.com/bookbind/pubbooks/stearns_awl/m…

A system in which people in a political community come together in a forum to make policy decisions themselves, with no intervening institution or officials.
American Politics | Democracy and Citizenship » Glossary

The involvement of electors directly in policy making without the need for representative legislators. This has advantages such as involving the people directly in the issues of interest to them and which directly impacts them. ...
path2prosperity4.us/index.php/glossary.html

As you can see over and over over again in these is the key component of the citizenry passing laws and public policy themselves without the benefit of representatives or officials as any sort of middle man.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

NO. YOu are absolutely incorrect. Here is a plethora of definitions of DIRECT DEMOCRACY for you. If these are not enough I will try to find a myriad of more definitions:


As you can see over and over over again in these is the key component of the citizenry passing laws and public policy themselves without the benefit of representatives or officials as any sort of middle man.

Thats strange I dont remember claiming that direct democracy involved someone other than the people voting. Im not sure why you felt it necessary to point that out.

It is also strange that you are telling me that I am wrong. Let me give you a simple example: Say there is a vote on something and there are 100 people voting (people not whatever it is that you were trying to say). They go to the polls and vote, in a yer or no format. After counting the votes the results were 75 yeses ans 25 no's. The yeses win because that is what the majority of the 100 people voted for.

Are you claiming that the minority wins that the 25 votes were the winners? After if I am wrong then you are saying that the majority vote does not win. Perhaps you should have looked up the word vote as well.

Vote | Define Vote at Dictionary.com


vote   
noun
1.a formal expression of opinion or choice, either positive or negative, made by an individual or body of individuals.
2.the means by which such expression is made, as a ballot, ticket, etc.
3.the right to such expression: to give women the vote.
4.the decision reached by voting, as by a majority of ballots cast: The vote was for the resolution.
5.a collective expression of will as inferred from a number of votes: the labor vote.

lol But I think that you are using a different definition for majority rule, most likely the one that insists the the must be a 50% or higher majority to validate a win. I didnt mention the majority in that context and you would do good by making sure of the facts before telling people that they are wrong.

WHat we are actually talking about though is popular rule. Which still can disenfranchise a minority of the voting public. If those 100 people were voting on taking away the rights of the 25 people who voted no then there was nothing that the 25 people could do.

 

[peepnklown]

It is truly sad that federalism and republicanism are almost forgotten in modern times. It is all about the separation of powers and checks and balances to diffuse power. The people created the states and then the states created the federal government. The original design of the American Republic was for the Congress to be the dominant branch of government. The people elected/controlled The House and the states elected/controlled The Senate. The president was not meant to be an all-powerful executive nor is an executive of the people per say, the president the limited executive of the federal government. The states created the federal government to mainly manage foreign affairs and very limited domestic affairs. Thus, when it came to the president, the states elected him via the Electoral College…the states would get the opinion of the people via the general election. The EC also helps give power to the small states which would be dominated by the more populous states.
It’s all about diffusing power. Now if we could eliminate the 17th Amendment and get back to basics.

 

[German guy]

Not sure that you understand this...
No one's vote counts. No one's. No one has a right to vote for President, and the people do not elect the President.

Oh, I understand that. I'm just saying I wouldn't be satisfied with that situation if I were American.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

Time for direct democracy - end electorial college?

Oh, I understand that. I'm just saying I wouldn't be satisfied with that situation if I were American.

How many countries have the people directly elect the Prime Minister? Not any that I know of.

 

[German guy]

How many countries have the people directly elect the Prime Minister? Not any that I know of.

Oh, there are quite a few countries which directly elect the President. For example France and Poland.

When you are referring to parliamentary systems, you are comparing apples with oranges. America doesn't have a parliamentary, but a presidential system.

 

[ReformCollege]

Direct democracy DOES NOT MEAN majority rule. Never has.

Only in this country. In countries with proportional representation, it does.

 

[haymarket]

Only in this country. In countries with proportional representation, it does.

We are talking about this country. And what we have in this country is a representative democracy bound by a Constitution.

We DO NOT have direct democracy. Never have. Majority rule is NOT direct democracy.

 

[ReformCollege]

We are talking about this country. And what we have in this country is a representative democracy bound by a Constitution.

We DO NOT have direct democracy. Never have. Majority rule is NOT direct democracy.

Absolutely we don't. Thank goodness.

 

[Excon]

First of all, the Senate is part of Congress. To say "in both the Senate and the Congress" is factually incorrect. You could say in the Senate and the House of Representatives. The term CONGRESS takes in both of those parts of the national legislative branch.

Pedantic. Nothing but a distraction.
But let me stroke your ego. Yes, you are correct.
And yet, in common parlance, it is ok to distinguish between the two by doing such.

Secondly, Could you explain to us how that would work exactly? Tell us how the remainder of the American people would tolerate and accept that sort of thing where political representation is given to an area with not one person to politically represent. And tell us who exactly would do that actual representing in Congress in nobody lived in that state to qualify for the ballot? And tell us how those persons would get elected without any votes cast for them?

Red hearing. Just another distraction.
I see your red hearing and raise you one of my own.
Show that the State would remain unpopulated for it to be of any concern.


Regardless. It doesn't matter. What was previously said was factually correct.



The Electors represent the State as an entity, not the people.
Just because a State allows the people to vote on it, doesn't mean they have to (by The Constitution), or even should.
Which is why the State can choose how they want the Electors to vote.

The People are represented by The House of Representatives.
The States were supposed to be represented by the Senate.
A compromise of Electors was done for the President who represents the Union of the States.


The biggest problem with this set-up is that most are not educated on the subject and want it to change because they do not know why it was set up in the first place. They do not understand that their state chose to allow them to vote for who the Electors choose.
And the few who do know and disagree, is because it favors their political belief system and is advantageous to their party.

---

I don't like the idea of some people's vote not counting at ALL because of the Electoral College.

Which do you think is worse?

It isn't because of the Electoral College, it is because of the Constitution.
You don't like the constitution?
You don't understand that the State as a separate entity needs to be represented also?

 

[haymarket]

Yes, you are correct.
And yet, in common parlance, it is ok to distinguish between the two by doing such.

Red hearing. Just another distraction.
I see your red hearing and raise you one of my own.
Show that the State would remain unpopulated for it to be of any concern.


Regardless. It doesn't matter. What was previously said was factually correct.

That is quite a post you have going there. It is not often we see somebody admit that the other side was right about an issue and then in the same post state that they were wrong at the same time on the same issue in a pathetic effort to save face.

I taught government for 33 years and if a student had provided the answers you did on a test they would have failed because they are factually and materially INCORRECT. And parlance be damned. Things are what they are and that is called reality.

Lets look at what you did to get yourself painted into this corner:

Originally Posted by haymarket
The so called State as an entity is meaningless and irrelevant without the citizens who live in it. As such, they ARE the State.
Incorrect.

your reply
They would still be a State without the people, and would still be represented in both the Senate and Congress.

Now you ask me to show why a state would be unpopulated and call it a "red hearing" (sic). Just like your basic mistake with what Congress is, you may want to find out what is the difference between crimson aural abilities and a scarlet fish. But beyond that, I have to tell you nothing regarding why a state would remain unpopulated. YOU are the one who made the contention and as such I have no obligation to help you get out of the corner you trapped yourself into.

That is enough of an answer for you.

Because I feel magnanimous today I could think of several very practical and possible scenarios why a state could become unpopulated involving nuclear damage or contamination making it uninhabitable, ocean levels rising and leaving it under water or any number of other disasters which would render the area unlivable.

But again - the empty state was your scenario - not mine.
The empty state without any people but holding elections or even formulating a process to pick electors was your scenario - not mine.

I asked you several questions about this empty state with no population which you were unable to give truthful answers to:

Could you explain to us how that would work exactly?
your answer:

The Electors represent the State as an entity, not the people.

Which ignores the situation you created and to which I responded to: a State without any people cannot have and people to become Electors. Its a perfect Catch 22 of your own making. I did not create the scenario - you did. I did not make the claim about an unpopulated state - you did.

my question to you about this unpopulated state
Tell us how the remainder of the American people would tolerate and accept that sort of thing where political representation is given to an area with not one person to politically represent?

You would not even touch that one with its obvious real world implications. I guess abstract theory is more to your liking?

my question to you about this unpopulated state

And tell us who exactly would do that actual representing in Congress in nobody lived in that state to qualify for the ballot?

You stayed away from that very real world problem also. As you did with the next question posed to you about this unpopulated state

And tell us how those persons would get elected without any votes cast for them?

But after all that you still insist

Regardless. It doesn't matter. What was previously said was factually correct.

You failed to take one baby step to counter the obstacles raised against your empty state proposition but still insist you are right even though you admitted you were wrong. Amazing.

 

[Excon]

:doh
iLOL

I wasn't taking an exam.

You failed to take one baby step to counter the obstacles raised against your empty state proposition but still insist you are right even though you admitted you were wrong. Amazing.

Your questions were and are still a red herring.
And there is simply no reason to go off on a tangent and answer them.
They are nothing more than a distraction, as stated.

Nothing you said has changed, or will change the fact that "They would still be a State without the people, and would still be represented in both the Senate and Congress." Nothing.
Try again teacher, because you fail for going off on a red herring and now for trying to justify it.

 

[haymarket]

:doh
iLOL

I wasn't taking an exam.


Your questions were and are still a red herring.
And there is simply no reason to go off on a tangent and answer them.
They are nothing more than a distraction, as stated.

Nothing you said has changed, or will change the fact that "They would still be a State without the people, and would still be represented in both the Senate and Congress." Nothing.
Try again teacher, because you fail for going off on a red herring and now for trying to justify it.

Progress. You have learned the difference between a fish and the ability to hear sound. Excellent.

The state without a population was YOUR INVENTION. It was not mine. If it is a red herring or red hearing or red anything, it is one of your own invention, creation and construction.

You want to pretend that your statements are divorced from the political reality we all live in. You want to simply grasp onto a concept of government as it existed on paper in the 1700's and pretend that would rule the day in the real world of the 21st century where conditions would have drastically changed.

What makes you think that the idea of a STATE - not an abstract theoretical hypothetical one - but a real actual state like Rhode Island or Florida actually is would continue to last for any actual length of time if it could not longer support any population? That is the point here and that is the reality that you pretend to play ostrich from.

Let us say that YOUR SCENARIO comes to pass and one of the fifty states ceases to have any population. You insist that the State (who ever the heck those people would be when nobody lives there) would still have members in Congress and would still elect or select Electors (who ever the heck those people would be when nobody lives there) to cast their ballots in the Electoral College.

My question to you is a simple and direct one: in your scenario of a State without a population casting their votes in the Electoral College, just who is it that actually attends that Electoral College meeting and casts those votes when nobody lives there and nobody was there to select anybody to go to Washington DC to do that actual task?

 

[Tucker Case]

I agree with those who are saying end the winner-take-all nature of our elections. That action would also be the end of the two party stranglehold, though, so it's never going to happen.

 

[Excon]

Progress. You have learned the difference between a fish and the ability to hear sound. Excellent.

Pedantic much?
Ooops!
Never mind, of course you are.
But since these type of things are all you have, it is understandable. iLOL

The state without a population was YOUR INVENTION. It was not mine. If it is a red herring or red hearing or red anything, it is one of your own invention, creation and construction.

Trying to still deflect from your red herring huh?
What a laugh!

This is where you introduced the first one.

The so called State as an entity is meaningless and irrelevant without the citizens who live in it. As such, they ARE the State.

My reply, pointing out that you were wrong is not a red herring.

Incorrect.
They would still be a State without the people, and would still be represented in both the Senate and Congress.

Because it would still be a State and represented, as stated. Period.
Your continuance with the questions, was also a red herring, as it is nothing more than a distraction. As already stated.

You want to pretend that your statements are divorced from the political reality we all live in. You want to simply grasp onto a concept of government as it existed on paper in the 1700's and pretend that would rule the day in the real world of the 21st century where conditions would have drastically changed.

:doh
iLOL
The Constitution is as written and applies no matter when it was written.
Sorry you do not like that.

What makes you think that the idea of a STATE - not an abstract theoretical hypothetical one - but a real actual state like Rhode Island or Florida actually is would continue to last for any actual length of time if it could not longer support any population? That is the point here and that is the reality that you pretend to play ostrich from.

Let us say that YOUR SCENARIO comes to pass and one of the fifty states ceases to have any population. You insist that the State (who ever the heck those people would be when nobody lives there) would still have members in Congress and would still elect or select Electors (who ever the heck those people would be when nobody lives there) to cast their ballots in the Electoral College.

My question to you is a simple and direct one: in your scenario of a State without a population casting their votes in the Electoral College, just who is it that actually attends that Electoral College meeting and casts those votes when nobody lives there and nobody was there to select anybody to go to Washington DC to do that actual task?

And again, there is no reason to entertain your red herrings.

 

[haymarket]

Because it would still be a State and represented, as stated. Period.


[/COLOR]

Period. Question mark. Exclamation mark. Put in any punctuation you want to put at the end of your self serving pompous pontifications. it. It still does not provide the very real answers to practical questions which show your thinking about a state without any people in it still gets representation is a fantasy that makes Wonderland look like basic common sense.

While you continue to engage in personal attacks upon me, perhaps you will someday get around to answering the key question about your proposition that a State without people still gets representation in Congress and to cast its electoral votes.... those very real world questions being
1- in a state with no people, just who is it that is voting to elect or select these representatives
2- in a state with no people, just who is it that is going to be the representatives to the Electoral College session?

No people equals nobody to select or elect them. No people equals nobody to do the representing. That is simple reality.

You can continue to engage in personal attacks on me and pathetically attempt to characterize exact facts and the insistence of correct information as a negative in your view, but after all that is said and done and you have painted me as the worst villain since Satan in the DIVINE COMEDY, you still have those very practical questions to answer.