Just as every Christmas brings the same tired argument over nativity scenes, Christmas trees and Santa Claus, every election cycle brings forth a fresh attempt to ignore the Constitutional establishment of the Electoral College, and allow the city centers to run roughshod over rural Americans. The 2012 election is no different, but it does bring a fresh approach to the age old problem of a “popular vote” Presidential election… by having the state legislators pass a law, obligating their EC votes to the national popular vote winners.
Under this scheme, state legislatures would pass legislation that would bind them to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote—even if the candidate that got the most votes nationally did not carry that individual state. In short, this would be a de facto popular vote for President—and done without amending the Constitution.
So far, seven states and the District of Columbia (with a combined 77 electoral votes) have enacted laws that do precisely this. Should similar laws be enacted in states with an additional 193 electoral votes, de facto popular election of the President will be achieved.
The California legislature, firmly in Democratic hands, was poised to pass similar legislation this week, but with opponents raising fierce objections, the vote was delayed. In Delaware, newly elected state GOP Chairman John Sigler told us, “Liberal Democrats in the state legislature have offered HB 55, and all the Republicans are against it. Republicans here are strongly opposed because it would repeal the Electoral College by implication. And in basically writing off many states, rural areas, and people, it would lead to rule by tyranny.”
As of the end of April 2011, Vermont – Bernie Sanders territory – became the eighth voting arena to enact such legislation. The others are New Jersey, Maryland, Massachussetts, Illinois, Hawaii, Washington State and Washington DC.
This is a completely different concept than the more common winner-takes-all method used by 48 states. In this case, a state’s vote is cast per their electors, but can be changed by national popular vote after the fact. Who in the world could think that a popularity contest should be a state’s deciding factor? And what state legislator thinks this is appropriate representation for his/her constituents?
This back door movement traces it’s roots back to the Al Gore disgruntled in 2001. The Wikipedia history of the “National Popular Vote Interstate Compact” cites the 2006 created non-profit to advocate for this “compact” hit the ground running, and had it introduced into 42 state legislative sessions by 2007. To date, only 8 of them have been enacted into law, translating to 77 guaranteed “popular vote” electoral votes for a US President.
All of those states with this passage are strongly leaning liberal/progressives states by tradition. What becomes more dangerous is if swing states manage to join this “compact” during a favorable political climate with their legislative make up.
Various lawsuits have been mounted… pro and con… on the concept of EC vs it’s reflection of a popular vote. In 2008, Washington DC Green Party member, Asa Gordon, mounted a legal challenge, which met the same fate as many legal arguments for more lofty causes… dismissed for lack of standing. Gordon’s lawsuit, targeting then Veep, Dick Cheney, was in fear of Cheney’s power, presiding over the Senate, and how his power would affect certification of the 2008 election results.
Gordon’s lawsuit is the favored legal template for progressives, seeking to reform the EC into a popular vote movement. Apparently, when the cause is near and dear to a progressive’s heart, they see a “lack of standing” – or a non ruling on the merits – as a bonus. Other cases with dismissals for the same standing reason, and with less popular causes, have not enjoyed the dismissal’s elevation in stature.
But the ruling on Gordon v. Cheney, now Gordon v. Biden, provides a blueprint for future progressive civil actions to reform the Electoral College to reflect the popular vote in presidential elections.
“I am very pleased with the ruling, but unsatisfied to the extent that I plan to appeal what I deem to be the court’s error to deny me personal standing,” said Asa Gordon. “The civil action was not only motivated by my personal standing as an injured voter, but the main objective was to determine the legal viability of the 14th Amendment’s Mal-Apportionment Penalty clause pleaded before the court that would democratize the Electoral College. The court granted the dismissal order predicated on a memorandum opinion that did not reject the constitutional arguments I pleaded before the court.”
The District Court, citing case law precedents, ruled that “a pro se plaintiff… cannot adequately represent the interests of other class members.” The court granted the dismissal motion, stating: “Because Gordon’s alleged injury is not ‘fairly traceable’ to the Vice President’s actions, which in fact are purely ministerial, but rather is attributable to the actions of third-party states and state officials, he fails to satisfy the causation element of standing. Therefore, he is unable to prosecute this action.”
What a bonus…. if they can talk the majority of high EC vote states into passing similar “national popular vote changes the state EC votes” legislation, there is no need to “reform” the Constitutional system set down by our Founding Fathers. They’ve found the back door…
As long as there are active progressives in our nation, bent on changing the Founders “Republic” to their desired “Democracy”, the push for voter and state inequity will continue. A quest that I’ve always found ironic. A liberal/progressive community is so all fired for “democracy” in our republic, but don’t recognize the overt lack of “democracy” when the few states with high population control political power over all 50 states. i.e. just how “democratic” is it for 5-8 states to dictate to 50?
But the same concept of the Electoral College, designed to prohibit that imbalance of voter power, also extends to the Senate. If we abolish the EC, why wouldn’t we then abolish the Senate where all states… regardless of population… have equal representation, and act as a balance to the House who’s membership is dictated by population? For that matter, using the same theory these state bills do, why doesn’t the Senate now have to automatically pass anything the House does, since they are more reflective of the nation’s population in membership?
This entire business of changing a state’s EC votes based on national popular vote makes me queasy… The fact that no one in any of these eight affected states has mounted a high profile challenge in the courts makes me even more queasy.
In fact, while some are quick to pronounce such a roundabout method to usurp what was clearly not the intent of the Founders – aka a President elected by national popular vote – as easily Constitutional, that is not necessarily the case. This would have to be scrutinized by a court, and determined whether it was the type of interstate pact that required Congressional approval.
Not all compacts require congressional consent under the Compact Clause. The Supreme Court has allowed interstate compacts to stand without congressional consent if they are non-political and fall outside the scope of the Compact Clause (Seattle Master Builders Ass’n v. Pacific Northwest Elec. Power and Conservation Planning Council, 786 F. 2d 1359 (9th Cir. 1986)).
To date, every case arising under the Compact Clause has concerned boundary, commercial, or regulatory compacts (Robert W. Bennett, State Coordination in Popular Election of the President Without a Constitutional Amendment, 5 Green Bag 2d 141, 141 n. 2 (2002)). Because no compacts challenged for want of congressional consent have ever been found to touch upon “political” matters, by treading either on federal interests or non-compacting states’ interests, the Supreme Court has never invalidated a compact under the Compact Clause (David E. Engdahl, Characterization of Interstate Arrangements: When Is a Compact Not a Compact?, 64 Mich. L. Rev. 63, 81 (1965)). Thus, it is unclear how a court would decide this issue.
Political Consent Theory. The Supreme Court would likely consider the compact under the “Political Consent” Compact Clause theory. This reasoning evaluates whether the compact contains a political subject affecting federal interests or the interests of non-compacting sister states, in which case congressional consent is required (U. S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Comm’n, 434 U. S. 452, 477 (1978)).
Proponents of the Interstate Compact argue that the compact does not actually interfere with non-compacting states and therefore may be formed without congressional approval. Opponents argue that the Interstate Compact impairs the effectiveness of non-compacting states’ electoral votes, and thus requires congressional consent (Derek T. Muller, The Compact Clause and the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, 6 Election L. J. 372 (2007)).
An excerpt from a working paper by Derek T. Miller at Penn State U is of the opinion this quasi-interstate compact would fail the Constitutional sniff test.
In Part III, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is examined and found constitutionally deficient. The Compact is actually a compact under the Compact Clause of the Constitution, because the Court has broadly construed what makes a compact. In particular, because the Compact is not effective until a critical mass of States have enacted it, and because States are constrained from withdrawing from the Compact too close to a presidential election, the Compact falls under constitutional scrutiny. Additionally, the Compact addresses a political matter that affects the interests of non-compacting sister States, and the compacting States enhance their political power at the expense of other States. The Article examines the various defenses of the Compact but finds that none of them overcome the political interests of sister States. Therefore, barring congressional consent, the Interstate Compact would fail.
Considering that the eight states that have eagerly enacted such a Constitutional suicide pact for a Presidential election are serious left leaning states, such a challenge in the courts is unlikely to happen. But with Louisiana, California and Colorado already visiting such a concept, any one of those states would effectively tip any election into the Democrat laps.
But wait… this gets better. The bizarre attempts to hand more-than-equal voting power to a urban Americans – or as former Delaware Gov. Pete du Pont called it, the “urban power grab” – brings even more “creative” analogies used by pundits to justify this movement. And WaPo’s Ezra Klein should be awarded a Most anti-Constitutionalist Pundit of the Day award for his “out of the box” analogy, suggesting that the EC is akin to giving more voting power to the young because they will be more affected by the election outcome.
WTF?
First he offers his “out of the box” idea for debate:
America should implement weighted voting to make voting more objective and fair, and give the young more power, because the consequences of political decisions will affect them the longest. Weighted voting would restore power to twenty and thirty year olds, where it resided before the advent of medical science. With the aid of computers, it would be easy to give everyone a Voting Score, just like we all have a credit score.
When he’s rightfully excoriated for such an absurd suggestion by emails and comments, he does an update, explaining his “idea” was to make a point…. that some states enjoy more voting power even tho they have smaller populations.
Some people seem to think I’m advocating reweighting votes by age. I’m not. I’m pointing out that weighting votes by state, which is what we currently do, doesn’t make any more sense. It was an important political compromise that helped coax concerned states into the union, but a lot of time has passed since then, and now it’s an anachronism that unwisely gives a resident of Montana a more powerful vote than a resident of Michigan. I’m for unweighting votes entirely, and anyone who feels themselves getting angry at the idea of tilting democracy toward the young or the college-educated other group should ask themselves whether they aren’t, also.
Below is the map of the states, and their allocated EC votes in the 2008 election.
I’m not sure just how math challenged Mr. Klein is, but I don’t see that 3 EC Montana votes is “a more powerful” voice than Michigan’s 17 EC votes.
The EC is a complex critter that has evolved over time. Congressional Research Service’s Thomas H. Neale
wrote an article in 1999, briefly touching on the Constitional origins and it’s development thru the decades. The closest it ever came to effective abolishment was the failed The Bayh-Celler Amendment, which a disgruntled Congress attempted to pass after the 1968 election of Richard Nixon, when 3rd party candidate, George Wallace, siphoned off over 13% of the vote. Opposition was not divided along party lines, but size of states lines. Rightfully so. Anything that is decided by the whims of the nation’s population ushers smaller state populations to the back of the bus.
The single most important concept is that the Founding Fathers put the system in place specifically to preserve states as a Republic. To protect them from discrimination because of size of populations. And most important, to make sure the Presidential election did not become a national popular vote. They gave the power to the states to determine how their electors were chosen. But no where does it indicate Constitutional intent to negate the state elections in favor of a psuedo national election – all based on the results of a political beauty contest. Yet this is exactly what these state bills accomplish.
Vietnam era Navy wife, indy/conservative, and an official California escapee now residing as a red speck in the sea of Oregon blue.
@GaffaUK:
I fear that my patience is truly a fault at times. I have read, through various postings of yours, within this posted article, assertions that the United States is, indeed, both a democracy, and a republic. That presupposes that the terms are interchangeable. They are not. After doing some heavy reading on this, I come back around to my initial view, which is, that the United States is NOT a democracy, but rather, a Republic.
Now, while we, the United States, do employ some democratic principles within our form of government, chiefly, that of the voting of laws, and our representation, those ideas are not prevalent throughout the entire structure of our government, and thus, we cannot be referred to as a democracy.
Black’s Law Dictionary states, for definitions of democracy, and republic;
Note the important distinction present. Within a Republican form of government, each individual is it’s own sovereign entity. Within a Democracy, the sovereign entity is the entire body of the people. Using those definitions, we then can look at the Constitution itself;
That is, perhaps, one of the most important Amendments to our Constitution, as it states, very explicitly, that the powers NOT GRANTED, to the federal government, within the Constitution, are reserved for the people, and the states. The people, as with the states themselves, are their own, individual, sovereign entities. Limited power is granted to the United States federal government, to act on their behalf.
Within a democracy, their is no such idea present. Within a democracy, the rule is by the majority. Within a democracy, the minority have no rights, even if present within a listing of ‘civil rights’, as even those are present at the whim of the majority.
Within a republic, the rule is by law. In our case, that of our Constitution, which is not present to delineate the individual’s rights, but to limit the power of the federal government, concerning our rights. Within our republic, we are not ruled by a majority. We grant power, to the federal government, to act on our behalf, for those actions which we, ourselves, cannot, or have difficulty, in doing. Our rights are supposed to be inviolate, unlike a democracy, in which their rights are granted to them. Ours are inalienable, meaning, they cannot be alienated from us, transferred from us, or surrendered by us.
In California’s government code, sections 11120 and 54950 both state, “The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them.” The “agencies”, of course, being the government of the state of California, and the United States federal government, and “the people” being, of course, the individual citizens . Other states have similar wordings within their Constitutions, or governmental codes.
A democracy, in truth, acts no different than a tyrant, other than by the number of tyrants present. With one’s rights, within a democracy, granted at the pleasure of the majority, those rights can be voted away by that majority, at their displeasure, be their intention ‘for the good of the people’, or not.
Our form of government is not supposed to act in a similar manner as that. Our rights, even the multitude of unlisted, undefined rights, if we were to act in strict accordance with our Constitution, cannot be voted out by the majority, whatever their intention might be.
Simply put, in a democracy, a citizen’s rights are granted by the government, which is the only sovereign entity present within that country. In a republic, a citizen’s rights are inherent by the mere fact of being a citizen.
So, while we employ principles of democracy, in order to conduct governmental business and affairs, it is wrong, and unacceptable, to define our form of government as a democracy. Yes, I have changed my stance on this, becoming more hard line with the definitions. At one point, I was willing to concede that our form of government could be, in fact, described generally as a democracy. However, in light of my recent readings, and the knowledge I have ascertained, I choose to back away from that concession.
In referring to our form of government as a democracy, and indeed, using that term almost exclusively, as many liberals and progressives are wont to do, they belie an intention of permanent change to our government, most notably, in the process by which we, the people, gain our rights, freedoms and liberties. They wish a form of government in which the majority grants those rights to it’s citizens, and use the benign phrase, “for the common good”, to obfuscate the fact that what they are really after is the power to reshape the country to fit within their image, or view, of what it should look like, according to their desires. An acceptance of those terms, starting with the acceptance that our government is a democracy, is to surrender that which makes our country, the United States, so unique, and great, within the established countries throughout history. I will not do so.
I do not expect you to agree with any of this posting, and frankly, I don’t really care if you do, or not. You have never been a citizen of this country. I cannot expect you to understand the intentions of our founding fathers, whose views shaped our Constitution, and unique form of government, nor can I expect you to ever have experienced the moment upon realization that you have rights that the government cannot touch, or the anger that comes from the realization that they have attempted to do so. You are, as I understand it, an ex-pat from Great Britain. You had no inherent, God-given, inalienable rights as a British subject.
So, state whatever you will. As in your previous postings, you will be wrong on this account. In general, or specifically, the United States is NOT a democracy. We are a Constitutional, Representative Republic.
@John Galt
If I say a car is blue and a SUV do you therefore presuppose the terms blue and SUV are interchangeable?
So now according to you the US is not generally or specifically a democracy? So therefore the quotes I have used from John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln, William Henry Harrison, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, William G Harding, Herbert Hoover, FDR, Truman, Ronald Reagan and George Bush where they have refered to the US as a democracy shows that these Presidents don’t know what they are talking about?! Sorry but I think they would know.
Where does it refer to individual sovereignity in the description of the Republic? Is that something else you presupposed? And where does that supposed importance distinction manifest in reality of today when comparing a Republic or Democracy. Can you even name one Democracy in the world? Or do really believe that there are no democracies in the world today especially now that you believe that US can’t even be called a Democracy in general? And what is the definition under Republic as opposed to Government; Republican government?
If that’s Black’s definiton of a Republic then how many of these republics fits with their definition?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_republics
You talk about that part of the definiton of a Republic is looking after minorities but this is plainly not the case when you examine the US (e.g. slavery) and of other republics .
I don’t know about you, Gaffa. But I don’t consider an adjective and a noun interchangeable.
This is your inherent problem. We’re not talking about other republics or government’s. We’re talking about *our* republic… something you apparently can’t get thru your head. And I pointed out that republic and sovereignty is specifically referred to in Article IV, Section 4 of our Constitution, as I reprinted above.
Can’t blame you for following butterflies. You’ve demonstrated you’re clueless to the structure of our nation, and it’s history. You got nothing left to redeem yourself save desperate anecdotes.
@Gaffer: The copy and paste king strikes again.
Who in the blue hell gives a rat’s ass how big a list of “republics” that you can find on the internet. Let me let you in on a little secret – you can find ANYTHING on the internet. Especially on wikipedia.
We have a Democratic Republic and you don’t like that. You ridiculed us and got your ass handed to you for your efforts.
Now you have painted yourself into a corner and continue to try and defend whatever latest argument that is flying around in that empty head of yours.
You showed a list of American historical figures calling America a democracy. You crowed about it, actually.
And even in that list, which you copied and pasted, you got it wrong several times.
In the Bush quote, he is speaking of the idea of democracy taking hold in other countries. In fact, none of those quotes you offered define us a democracy rather than a republic.
Then when johngalt offers his own, CORRECT list, you dismiss it out of hand.
Even though he quotes some of the SAME historical figures YOU did!!
You are pathetic, Gaffer. I have debated you before here at FA and your tactics never change. Once you are proven wrong you ridicule and/or try to change the debate.
Pathetic –
1: having a capacity to move one to either compassionate or contemptuous pity
Pretty much sums it up, Gaffer.
@GaffaUK:
Your analogy falls short in several ways, Gaffa. One, Mata has already mentioned the word usage. Two, the two terms you use are descriptive of two different aspects of a car. Not quite the same as using the terms ‘democracy’ and ‘republic’ to describe, or define, one aspect of a country, namely, it’s government.
No, it is not. I have qualified my views thoroughly, using plenty of unimpeachable reasonings. I have stated that the United States government, in it’s functioning, uses democratic actions in some of it’s functioning, however, that does not make our government a democracy, in entirety, which is what we are discussing. As for your quotations from various figures, the ones who are referring to our country as a democracy are indeed wrong. Chances are they misunderstand the terms similarly to your misunderstandings about them.
Let’s just apply word usage and definitions to the argument, shall we?
And, from the definitions from Black’s Law Dictionary;
Using those three definitions, the only conclusion to make is that in a republic, sovereign power resides in the individual entities, in our case, the individual citizen, and the individual states. I already gave you the example from California’s governmental code, as well. If you still fail to see the difference, which I have stated is of primary import to understanding the difference, then I cannot help you, nor can anyone, to understand why the U.S. is a republic, and not a democracy.
I am only concerned with the United States, and none other.
Again, you misuse a term, in this case, minorities.
In the context of my usage, the second definition is the one that applies. For example, in whether to raise taxes, or lower them, the lesser number of people, on their side of that issue, is a minority. And I do not include it within a definition of Republic. I include it within statements and ideas, from the founding fathers, who were very concerned with upholding our inalienable rights, despite what the majority wants, and as such, they gave us a Constitutional Republic, instead of a democracy.
@johngalt: At the risk of sounding like your mini-me, I have to say that your last few comments here to Gaffer are thoughtful, concise and extremely well written. Your patience is incredible and I must ask, are you or have you ever been a teacher?
@anticsrocks:
Nope, never been one. Unless you count being an instructor at Naval Nuclear Prototype Training Unit, Charleston.
And thank you for the compliments. I appreciate it.
@John Galt
Fact is the US doesn’t have any official description for it’s form or type of government. Is is Democratic Republic, Federal Republic, Federal Democracy, Federal Constitutional Republic, Constitutional Republic, Constitutional Democracy, Liberal Democracy, Liberal Republic, Representative Republic, Representative Democracy, Republican Democracy, Presidential Republic, Presidential Democracy, Confederated Representative Democracy, etc? Depends on who you ask you will get different answers.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_of_government
The actual word ‘Republic’ is not officially part of the United States name and it does not appear it The Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution.
This sums it up pretty well (shock horror a cut and paste – so turn away Mata and mini-me – as if you don’t cut & paste – lol )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic
As for the Federalist Papers…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers
How very weak. We are discussing what makes aRepublic and what makes a Democracy. Therefore it is important to look at other examples. As that weakens your argument I can see why you would want to dodge that. Obviously it is transparent that both terms aren’t very specific with various meanings which are somewhat confused even within the US itself. Both terms can be used and have been used.
As for Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1
So if the States are sovereign then surely they should decide?
However it reality the States aren’t sovereign entities as they can’t legally leave the Union!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White
As for the 17th Amendment – then this surely this couldn’t of been done with a whim and was Constitutional – so what’s the problem?
Finally on the US Government website..
Core documents on USDemocracy
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/coredocs.html
and here’s question 78 on the US. Citizenship and Immigration Services test question..
http://usgovinfo.about.com/blinstst.htm
So just how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?;)
@Gaffer: Wikipedia! What a rock solid source to cite…
/sarcasm off
You said:
Uh, nope. We are correcting you when you called the United States a straight democracy. When you were called on it, you got your panties in a twist and started Googling your little heart out to grasp at ANYTHING you could throw on the screen that would, in your murky mind, allow you to jump up and down like a little kid and say, “See??!! I’m right, I’m right!!”
Nan pegged you to wall with her reminder that you are not a citizen of the UK, rather you are a subject and it is obvious and understandable that you do not comprehend the nuances and intricacies of a truly free society.
You really needn’t get defensive over the dressing down you received over this. Honestly, the only reason you got the harsh treatment you did was that you started this conversation off by insulting our way of governing ourselves. All you need to do is ask our forgiveness and I am sure all will be put behind us.
It is sad that rather than offering a realistic, thoughtful comment you decided instead to resort to mockery. I guess that tells us a lot about the way you think of us as Americans.
Have a nice day, Gaffer.
@GaffaUK:
The Federalist Papers were not meant to be a guide to the Constitution. They were, in fact, a series of essays outlining the arguments for the Constitution, as written, and thus, we can gain from them the reasonings behind the forms of the federal government provided to us, within the Constitution. They have become the very guide they were not meant to be. It is essential, in any study of the Constitution, to avail oneself of the opportunity to study the Federalist Papers, in their entirety, in order to gain a clearer understanding of the contents within the Constitution. It is also essential, in any study of the Constitution, to delve into the Anti-Federalist Papers, so that one gains a clearer understanding of the arguments against Federalism that the Federalist Papers were arguing for, and thus, have a more complete understanding of why and how our Constitution was written, and adopted.
Thomas Jefferson himself stated, in a letter to James Madison in 1788, that the Federalist Papers “as being, in my opinion, the best commentary on the principles of government, which ever was written.”
Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist Paper no. 85 writes;
In short, the Federalist Papers are an excellent means of understanding the thoughts at the time, particularly of Madison, on the structure of the new government, as outlined by the Constitution.
No, it is not, and we are not. The discussion revolves around whether the United States is a democracy, or a republic. And, that being the case, I commented that I am concerned with the United States, and no other country.
In the Declaration of Independence, it states;
The states retained their sovereign status under the Articles of Confederation, the forerunner to our Constitution.
Article I of the Paris Peace Treaty states;
The ideas of state sovereignty are continued in the Constitution itself, under Article IV, Section 4, under the 9th and 10th Amendments, and the 11th Amendment, which in recent court cases has shown the validity of states’ sovereign immunity.
All of these together provide a general consensus that the idea of the individual states retaining their own sovereign status. Your argument falls on the fact that a state has not been allowed to leave the union, however, it has been un-Constitutional action, force, by the federal government that has prevented it. Your assertion that we do not live in sovereign states, because we haven’t been allowed to leave the union, means very little, and is simply a product of a belief that our federal government has more power than they were meant to have. Nothing more.
That is actually kind of funny. You use a test question, from a test most likely written by an unnamed government employee, as proof of our government being a democracy.
Hamilton again, on Federalist Paper no. 85, again;
James Madison, Federalist Paper no. 55;
And, again, there are numerous references to the form of government proposed within the Constitution, contained in the Federalist Papers, to it being republican.
You are exercising a vast misunderstanding of certain terms and ideas essential to the framework of the United States, the most important of which, again, is the idea of individual sovereignty within each citizen, and the independent sovereignty of the states, both of which are of utmost import within the idea of a republican form of government, and that are not inclusive within a democracy.
As for the 17th Amendment, I have stated that I agree their reasoning behind the change was sound. I understand why they passed, and ratified it. Their execution, however, is a dismal failure that removed an important construct of our Constitution from the checks and balances contained within it’s framework.
I have presented the case, that the U.S. is a republic, and not a democracy, with various sources, and using logic and reason. That you fail to understand the distinction is not my failure, but yours. And yes, there is a distinctive difference, as outlined within Black’s Law Dictionary, that you have failed to counter with anything other than an opinion.
Gaffa UK, DON’T ASK TO SEE THE POWER THAT THE PEOPLE POSESS IN THE REPUBLIC,
if they would find the NEED to apply the power that has been delegated to them by the CONSTITUTION,
AND THE BILL OF RIGHT, THIS GOVERNMENT WOULD TREMBLED OF FEAR,
that is why they better do the right jobs they are required to do that is TO SERVE THE PEOPLE WITH IMPARTIALITY AND WISDOM FIRST BEFORE ANY OTHER WORLD POWER OR ORGANISATION.
AMERICA IS A SUPER POWER NEVER HAVE BEEN MATCH BY ANY OTHER NATIONS,
THEY HAVE SPILL THEIR BLOOD FOR THE FREEDOM OF IT’S PEOPLE AND FOR OTHER PEOPLE ABUSED BY CRIMINAL MINDS IN POWER.
so you should treat them with most respect when you mingle with their core beliefs
LONG LIVE THE REPUBLIC OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,
MADE UP WITH CONSERVATIVES TEAPARTYS REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS
johngalt, hi, you have a abrain capacitya that outweIght a lot of people, and
I feel that, to ask any one to read and understand those so important papers,
is beyong demanding some brains to understand it. because there are diffrent stages of limitations on many, they could not possibly absorb. that is why most of those delegate their votes to another person which often is less able then they are to understand, but posess a strong speech power to elaborate any studied quotes some false and very dangerous doctrineS of destruction as the world outside has given already the outcome, but still they, ignorants, with the only skill is to harangue the crowd to follow them
blindly on the road to precipice, like the BIGGEST AND GIANTLY STRONG MAMMOOTHS
HAVE BEEN EXTERMINATED JUST BY FOLLOWING THE TOP ONE TO END UP ALL IN THE CREVACE UNABLE TO RECOVER , AND RISE AGAIN ON TOP; BUT HOW COME IT ENDED LIKE THIS BECAUSE YOU CANNOT FAIL IF YOU ARE AS STRONG AT THEM, IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE, THEY WHERE THE STRONGEST,
YES YOU CAN. AND FAIL MISERABLY IN PAIN. TAKING ALL YOUR FOLLOWERS WHO DEPENDED ON YOU.
@ilovebeeswarzone:
I’d like to see a bumper sticker with that on it. Very funny, and very insightful, Ms. Bees.
So funny watching all the spin. The only way that conservatives can hope to retain power is to suppress individual votes.
Good luck!
The only way Dems can win is to install phony Tea Party candidates, like they did in NY recently.
anticsrocks, hi, yes they are not to be trust by the voter, they will use any sneaky stuff on
triyin to deceive the people,
but now the people are more aware, and wont go with the fooling around,
AMERICA IS MARCHING TO CHANGE, WHAT EVER THEY DID.
This is what is known as an intellectually dishonest statement.
Tell me, Mr. Parker, just what statements we have made that are ‘spin’. I’d also like to know why, exactly, you think that adherence to the EC suppresses individual votes.
Drive-bys don’t cut it here, Mr. Parker. We tend to discuss issues in thoughtful, rational manners, using reason and supplying sources, as support for our views, or stances, on those issues. In reference, look at Gaffa’s postings, which, although I disagree with him on nearly everything he has stated, I am provided with links, quotes, and reasoned responses, in order to develop my counter-argument, if I have one, or agree, if I am so inclined. You have provided nothing along those lines. I will not be surprised by a lack of thoughtful response on your part.
Steve Parker, you can keep the good luck for yourself,
YOU’LL NEED A LOT OF IT
johngalt, you crack me up.
You’re a serious person. I can tell. You should be taken seriously. I can tell that you want that as well.
That’s why this “message board” is so important to you. You believe that you will be taken seriously.
And you are.
It’s like the lunch table in high school where all the “slow” kids sit. There’s one of them there who is the “smartest” and he’s highly regarded among his peers.
But he’s still a retard to the rest of the school.
This is no different that a bunch of people getting together rehashing what they’ve heard on talk radio or on Fox News.
And just to avoid surprising you, suck a dick. LOL
STEVE PARKER, STOP BEING A SNAKE, you must be lonely down below
Thank you, Mr. Parker. You have succeeded in providing the perfect example of why people like Obama and Pelosi get elected. The people who would vote for them do not have the intellect necessary to cut through the B.S. being spoonfed to them, but rather, lap it up like it was their favorite ice cream. Not surprising that you would end your post that way, and no, it wasn’t a surprise. Nor was it a surprise that you added nothing of meaningful value to the discussion. Joining a “message board”, simply to insult people, under the anonymity the internet provides, shows your character flaws.
I’ll try not to make the mistake of trying to engage you in a discussion, or even note your posts anymore, as it is worth less in value than is scraping the mud off my boots after a day of working.
@johngalt: Steve-O reminds me of that old saying –
I wish I could buy him for what he’s worth and sell him for what he thinks he’s worth…
Here in Louisiana the stealth bill to manipulate the EC votes in creeping along without making a sound. I have written my representative and senator asking them to help stop this bill. I have also written the sponsors of the senate bill and the house bill requesting information on the bill and reasons why they are trying to undermine the Constitution on a state level. Nothing but crickets chirping in the background. No responses. I spoke with the editor of the local paper. He knows nothing of the bill but personally feels like the EC is an antiquated mode of electing the President. Geez, this is scary.
Thanks for the update, Sid. I was wondering how it was going as I haven’t seen any news INRE LA’s bill either. Then again, the tabloid news is only full of Weinergate these days….
Question… have you considered writing Gov. Jindal, the desk where the buck stops? He can veto, and is there veto proof support for this bill in your state legislature?
I will take your advice and write to Jindal. I had hoped that one of these so called public servants would have responded to my letters, but alas they’re probably glued to the TV trying to find ways to avoid weiner tweets.
Most definitely waiting to see if Jindal responds, Sid. No matter what the legislature does, Jindal can stop it, and then it will take veto proof majority to change it. Don’t know the make up your current legislature, but even that he would reject it with the veto pen would be most welcome. If LA doesn’t appreciate Jindal, then we’d appreciate him in the US Congress or in a POTUS bid. (many may not know he was born in Baton Rouge…). Personally, I’m sorry he’s not throwing his hat into the ring now, but suspect he has more work to do in LA.
@Sid: What you need to do is write letters to the editor in your local newspapers. That will help to inform the public as well.
Finally got a reply from our local representative concerning the stealthy electoral college bill this morning. He stated that several of his collegues talked to the sponsors of the bill and convinced them that this was not a good bill. The did in fact pull it and the bill is dead for this session. He agreed that by changing the way the Electoral College works would in fact force us to award our 8 electors to a candidate who in the last election was overwhelmingly rejected by Louisiana voters.
We never heard back from any other legislators nor did we hear from Governor Jindal on this issue. What was frustrating was that this bill was unanimously approved in committee but we never heard or read anything concerning this bill during the session. We are grateful that it was killed. Next week we will have the opportunity to ask one of the sponsors what in Hell’s name was he thinking. I can’t wait to hear his reasoning/excuses for trying an end around the amendment process.
Sid, thanks so much for the dutiful follow up! I’m certainly glad that the bill was pulled. But it sure looks like it tried to sneak in anyway. So apparently, you following up with your elected ones helped push that along. Congratulations!