Weekly Open Thread

Heck, we’d be a whole lot better America to abolish 3 out of those 4, suek – that is for darn sure.

The solution to making the electoral college work (if we had to 🙂 is exactly as you say – set up the districts in predictable standard units that do not change when the population or party does.

Section lines would work in most cases, even in urban areas. At river boundaries which establish State lines, a section still works because those in one State vote in that jurisdiction, and the rest inn the other one.

Not surprisingly, too many benefit from sustaining an obviously unworkable electoral process.

MH,

I know what you intend by mentioning the so-called “living Constitution.” However, that was not my intent at all. I’ll try to explain myself better…

My guess is that perhaps 25% of Americans have studied sufficiently to form an educated opinion about Constitutional issues. That group is very much like the Supreme Court in that it sits, so to speak, when issues of uncertainty DO arise, and they do routinely arise as the original authors rightly foresaw. I’m merely saying that the electoral college is one of those issues which, when written, was based upon land owning males in 13 disparate largely rural sovereignties being the electorate. For example, most people do not realize that until the early 1800s ALL votes in elections were taken orally. There were no paper ballots at all, and as such that change would be a legitimate case of evolution in practices, as would be Universal Suffrage and a number of other necessary adjustments. Such movement does not undermine the sanctity of our fundamental rules.

Further, I would estimate that another 25% of us have a basic respect for the Constitution, like it “the way it is”, and would prefer that it not change very much in form and not at all in purpose. This group may not actually be well informed about the legal details, but they are protective of the documents as a bastion against despotism.

Then there is the 25% who think they know what the Constitution says and means, and take liberties with it according to their convenience, interpreting and mis-interpreting sections and phrases to suit a political agenda. Often times, members of Congress fall into this category, at our peril. It is this group who stealthily manipulate provisions of our law for selfish purposes unrelated to the common good.

And finally comes the 25% who have no clue, do not feel the need to care, and are parasites on the body of our Republic.

The electoral college, gerrymandering, closed primaries and sovereign immunity have come to be used against the will of the people in a representative government. Beneficiaries of this know it, which is why any discussion of modifications is so fiercely and quickly stifled.

“Now, perhaps you’ll explain to me how I… or anyone… has “stifled” your modification debate?”

a. It isn’t “my” modification debate. This matter has been around for generations and re-emerges frequently, whenever the media and other priorities of governance permit… and they rarely do.

b. If gerrymandering, or “redistricting” and “reapportionment”, truly were illegal, then it would not be happening so flagrantly every 10 years following the census, with outcomes dependent upon which political party was in or wanted control.

c. When political parties begin to think more of our citizen’s needs than they do of their own collective power positions and riches, then they might be taken seriously again. They generally do not deserve the allegiance we grant them.

d. Domestic Sovereign immunity has evolved to protect the State from being held responsible for malfeasance and criminally negligent behavior.

Studying so many of the most vexing seemingly endless troubles our nation has, most of them can be attributed one way or another to those 4 Rules of Law which, mostly because they have been so egregiously abused over time, stand in the way of orderly resolution.

Simple example:
If gerrymandering were, indeed, banned – then there would be no percentage at all for any political party to interfere with or to manipulate the counting of “underserved constituencies” (aka illegal immigrants) so as to bolster the voting rolls.

Interestingly, the arguments against such abolishment are always identically the same, unchangingly. That fact often suggests successful propaganda more than reasonable debate.

MA,

Direct Democracy would not work in the America of 2010 any better than it did in the France of the late 19th century… but, on the other hand, we should cease pretending that the people elect Presidents either. One reason for a percentage of low turnout in General elections is that many have justifiably become cynical that their vote counts. All it would take to set fire to this issue would be for just enough “Faithless Electors” to vote the opposite way, once.

The problem with the electoral college is, simply, that it no longer performs the function it was intended to and has come to serve as a form of institutionalized hegemony. My guess as to when this shift fully occurred would be sometime in the 1960s.

After discussing this far and wide for the past 20 years or so, I’m under no illusion at all that anything will change in my lifetime. Even those who should favor abolishment of the 4 tyrannies will not do so, as your Ohio experience proved. The voters were convinced by those who stood to lose the most from the abolishment, that it was unwise… 100% against their best interests.

I believe one day these absurdities in our Rule of Law WILL disappear, however, and that those 4 particular outrages will be regarded as the equivalent of Poll Taxes and Jim Crow laws.

MH

If it is, or ever was, the people who elected Presidents, then why don’t candidates simply campaign directly to members of the electoral college?

The college can, and have, overturned the popular vote. Hence, the people do NOT elect the President and should not be encouraged to think that we do.

The electoral catastrophe is that the people we have elected represent themselves, not us, the great majority of the time.

Were they to have represented us, then they would not now be attempting, once again, to regulate corporations whose misconduct recently threatened our entire economy, and still does.

People who like the electoral system as it is now, and yet have so many complaints about how it functions in practical terms, might consider that something truly is really really wrong with it.

I don’t understand what this being an open thread has or doesn’t have to do with changing the subject.

MA
“@Bluehawk: So you are just complaining about the electoral college without offering anything approaching a more just alternative?
That reminds of the quote attributed to Winston Churchill: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms. ”
Question: Are you a Ron Paul supporter?”

🙂
No, I am not anywhere close to being or ever having been a “Ron Paul supporter.”

The alternative I have offered is to simply do away with, for example, the electoral college. And, what is more, if that could be accomplished as one pragmatic step, then relieving us all of the other 3 would help still more… if what we all want is a functioning Republic that manages to work well for the greater number; assuming we agree that what works for the greater number is usually best for all concerned?

Churchill’s quote, often raised, is certainly true, I suppose. I’m not advocating any change in that sentiment, but wouldn’t we all prefer to see our government do a better job? Isn’t that what democracy (small “d”) is about? And, for Americans, isn’t that the promise of a Republic?

All I am suggesting is how obvious it is that our electoral mechanism is broken, and one way to improve it.

MH,

Finally I saw that you got so read my bulleted missive… you make a good case in part of your reply when mentioning whether or not an activity is criminal, vis a vis electoral structure.

Because the (my) 4 abolishment points work together so well to thwart representative government in fact, versus in name only, I suppose one would have to prove that the behavior was indeed criminal.

That, is a class action lawsuit I would sign on to, if reasonably argued.

I also believe that SCOTUS would entertain it! Problem would be to determine who had standing to bring it, and how to finance the effort.

🙂

Mike,

Gosh, we can be victims of our own stereotypes, can we not.

I was, am and will remain a steadfast supporter of Dubya, then, now and always. In fact, on November 12th just passed, I was honored to be at SMU to hear him and Mrs. Bush address a gathering there to celebrate the locating of their library on campus. And, in the recent 8+ years I have “lost” more friends and angered more “family” because of this than by any other single cause in my 63 years! I don’t regret a moment of it… with each passing day as the Democrats adopt more and more of his tactics in spite of themselves, I rejoice and have a full-throated old man’s chuckle.

I repeat, the specific alternative I do plainly suggest is to repeal, abolish, get rid of, do away with, expunge, kill, destroy, eliminate and otherwise obliterate the electoral college, gerrymandering, closed primaries and sovereign immunity. Just let them go, all at once or one at a time. Better would be all at once, so as to defeat the inevitable attempts to replace them. I believe it would cause, at worst, consternation among politicians – for whom in the better part I feel zero sympathy. I assert that simply because the remainder of our electoral process is in pretty darn good shape, and can endure a major positive optimism.

That, is the alternative to leaving things as they are – since fiddling and tinkering with it all has not worked for the better in the past century either. The moment a refined Republic begins to rear it’s lovely head, somebody in Congress comes along and enacts or refuses to enact a legislation which neutralizes the democracy (small “d”).

Before I send this, let me say that I really hope it comes through to you on the page. I don;t think I can repeat this eloquence again 😉

Mike

Coming to this part now:

“@Bluehawk: I’m glad to hear of your support for Bush. You may be a new commenter here, but I was checking out the Library site in Dallas last February.
Again, I wonder about your alternative. It seems to me that it’s just kill the foundations of our current system without any thought for the consequences.
That doesn’t strike me as an alternative. More of a belief in chaos that is at odds with support for Bush.
Still, I’m willing to listen if you care to explain.”

One of the best character strengths of Mr. Bush is his humanity… his humble normal guy common sense mentality, in my opinion. He is a Republican, probably because that is the best conservative “game in town” at the moment, and for the past 150 or so years. But, I never found him dogmatic. He did what he had to do, and gave leadership as expected – in the end, he even survived his own political party. Not a small achievement, as his successor is fast discovering.

The conclusion I reached long ago is that the foundations of our Republic are found in the Declaration and Constitution as amended. Certain elements of the latter have been dramatically changed, sometimes even by simply abolishing really bad stuff that had been common practice for generations, often which nobody liked – hence it/they became unsustainable.

What I’m asserting is, for example, that an electoral college is not so much a foundation of the Republic as it is a convenient rule (not of the same status as our Bill of Rights) written in so as to protect special interests – probably necessary in the late 18th century; given the fact that all 13 colonies printed their own currency and there was no central bank – to say nothing of the fact that the warriors who fought the war needed to be paid, quickly.

We can probably live without it, and I, for one, would really like to see Congress have a full attempt to do that, and more. Let the people think it through, thoroughly and at length. Put all the shibboleths against the abolishments right on the table, and see if they wither as they should.

I had a hard time, in college, accepting the tortured suggestion that it is possible to deduce an OUGHT from an IS. Rather, sometimes, or maybe usually, the OUGHT has nothing to do with and is not dependent upon the IS… is what I am saying.

MH

“oops… forgot to mention this…
Bluehawk#44: And, because the States are free to appoint whomever they please to it, those choices are guaranteed to have been based on anything but representative government. In other words, the electors are almost certainly given their extreme authority by an undemocratic mechanism.
Not true. Electors are elected by citizens of the state. Parties nominate groups as recommended electorate. They are not “appointed” by the State.”

It is 100% clear to me, call it what one will, to say that the electors are in any way shape or form “elected” is to believe in the tooth fairy.

They are, by all means, appointed as a foregone conclusion, be it periodic, or as a sinecure or in some other way. And, what is more, should there ever be any threat to that process, the vested interests will merely change the laws – good example of that is what happened in Massachusetts recently in order to make sure a Democrat filled Kennedy’s seat.

It is fair to conclude that because those who authorize the election of electors are themselves elected, then the electors are legitimately in office by democratic means. However, under the circumstances, the stretch required to endorse such a procedure is too much of one… particularly since the two coasts retain the ability to, in effect, turn whole elections.

Here are the specifics:

Simply put, it does not succeed in performing what it is represented to achieve.

It does NOT, for example, prevent large populations from overwhelming the electoral will of small ones.

And, because the States are free to appoint (some believe the electors are elected) whomever they please to it, those choices are guaranteed to have been based on anything but representative government. In other words, the electors are almost certainly given their extreme authority by an undemocratic mechanism.

Thirdly, because any elector is free to make of themselves a “Faithless Elector” (i.e. NOT vote as expected or promised when the time comes) then the Presidency is left to the whims of unelected persons, who are largely unknown to anyone.