Posted on 01/06/2019 5:49:55 AM PST by gaggs
California is big enough to be its own country and its two houses of the legislature are represented based on population. So what happens to the interests of Central Valley farmers? They are steamrolled by the latte liberals on the coast—starved for water for their crops because the coastal liberals allow trillions of gallons of freshwater from rivers to flow into the Pacific Ocean in order to preserve the ecosystem of a 4 inch fish.
Read 55 Men and the Constitution by Rodell.
This is a brief book. Worth the read.
Another problem they couldn't solve....was that the USSC had no check/balance. We can see what happened. They usurped power from the states AND legislated from the bench.
Great evidence of the intent of the Electoral College. The writers were at the peak of their wisdom on the EC.
Does anyone think that any candidates would visit Maine 2nd Congressional District (Northern Maine) if there was no EC?
Also, the way to make the EC More representative (for the whiners) is to award EC votes on the basis of the popular vote in each CD; no more winner take all. Of course the ‘rats would hate it.
Rule by majority of population is as arbitrary as any other division (age, location, gender, wealth) but has less logic to support it than geographic representation, as a pure population count doesn’t distinguish between important interests, conditions, and resources, all of which have equal claim on the common interest.
It’s arbitrary, dangerous, and absurd that a population center should rule a geographically diverse nation, as the population centers actually depend upon the rest of the nation for survival and therefore shouldn’t be able to solely command it.
I live in Arlington County, VA, which is one of only two counties in Virginia that are ruled by “at large” voting for county council (the other county is the largest with the fewest people). It’s a case study of what would happen nationally without district/state divisions. Since the Council doesn’t represent a specific area, each member selects his own constituency and guides county decisions and resources accordingly — yet, each is selected by a single party (Democrats) which controls the majority vote across the entire county. It leaves us with single-party rule that is driven to the extremes (leftist here) of the party, as there is no balancing power to moderate.
Even the Athenians divided their democracy by “tribes” (the Romans did, too), which were essentially geographic districts.
Why We Need The Electoral College
Simple. To keep the shithole states from dominating presidential elections.
The populations of that vast area continue to value the enduring ideas which motivated the Founders and Framers of America's Constitution over 200 years ago to seek, above all, FREEDOM (liberty) for individuals.
Even today, words matter, and the words of the Declaration of Independence mean something to those who value that document's claims.
On the other hand, Progressive actions to devalue those documents and words are rejected, as evidenced by that voting map.
In an effort to explain what may highlight the "chasm," that great author of The Conservative Mind," Russell Kirk, is quoted below:
". . . the intelligent conservative endeavors to reconcile the claims of Permanence and the claims of Progression. He thinks that the liberal and the radical, blind to the just claims of Permanence, would endanger the heritage bequeathed to us, in an endeavor to hurry us into some dubious Terrestrial Paradise. The conservative, in short, favors reasoned and temperate progress; he is opposed to the cult of Progress, whose votaries believe that everything new necessarily is superior to everything old."Change is essential to the body social, the conservative reasons, just as it is essential to the human body. A body that has ceased to renew itself has begun to die. But if that body is to be vigorous, the change must occur in a regular manner, harmonizing with the form and nature of that body; otherwise change produces a monstrous growth, a cancer, which devours its host. The conservative takes care that nothing in a society should ever be wholly old, and that nothing should ever be wholly new. This is the means of the conservation of a nation, quite as it is the means of conservation of a living organism. Just how much change a society requires, and what sort of change, depend upon the circumstances of an age and a nation.
". . . The great line of demarcation in modern politics, Eric Voegelin used to point out, is not a division between liberals on one side and totalitarians on the other. No, on one side of that line are all those men and women who fancy that the temporal order is the only order, and that material needs are their only needs, and that they may do as they like with the human patrimony. On the other side of that line are all those people who recognize an enduring moral order in the universe, a constant human nature, and high duties toward the order spiritual and the order temporal."
http://kirkcenter.org/conservatism/ten-conservative-principles/
We have a lot of programs in law today, like affirmative action, that can give minorities more representation than strict population counts would allow. Also, laws guarantee rights for minorities against the majority.
If we move to a pure democracy, ethnic minorities are one vote away from losing all representation and rights.
Look at South Africa 's land grabs for an example of pure democracy in action.
Donald Trump - The Echo of Our Framers Uncorrupted President.
Ping to #29.
To OregonRancher, the states were represented in the Senate.
For House size, the current limit of 435 Representatives was set by the The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 based on the census of 1910 when the population was 92,228,496. The result of the 2010 census was 308,745,538, a 235% increase in the last 100 years. Maybe it's time to increase the size of the House? This would rebalance the party split in Congress, as well as increase the Electoral College to influence presidential elections.Maybe with a larger and more fairly redistricted House, we won't see controversial splits between the Electoral College result and the so-called "popular vote" that the left uses to delegitimize results it doesn't like?
From another thread: If we increase the size of the House to reflect the current population, the Electoral College will grow proportionally and we won't see such dramatic splits between the popular vote and EC vote, because these "unrepresented" popular votes will now be accounted for in the Electoral College.
-PJ
The people are certainly under-represented. At over 720,000 constituents each, it is no wonder the contest for many seats is a brutal cage-fight. Most reps cannot possibly reflect these large and diverse groups.
My earlier point is that the Framers were far more concerned with finding a way to elevate not only the best men to the Presidency, but to make sure they didn’t owe political debts either.
Well done...
It is the city “one size fits all and we know whats best” mentality. When in reality there are thousands of different local cultures in this country with different interests and each deserve the right to vote for what serves their own local culture and interests best.
Without the EC, one failed culture will be dictating without opposition what all the other cultures will become.
The very same failure...
The estimated population of Tennessee in 1780 was 10,000
"Metropolitan areas" were something people came up with later.
It's not like 18th century Americans were great commuters.
If you were 10 or 20 miles outside of Boston, you might as well have been in Tennessee.
What about awarding based on congressional district a candidate has won and award 2 to the winner of the state.
*************
Simple, but accurate.
I believe the original intent was that each House District have one Electoral College vote, based upon how the people in the district voted in a Presidential election.
After all each House Member represents the will of the total number of people in their district (one vote), whether a lot of people turned out to vote, or few people voted. The House Member represents the the total number of people in his or her district.
So too, should the members of the Electoral College vote according to the wishes of the district, whether a lot of people turned out to vote, or a few.
Before the 17th Amendment each state legislature decided how the two delegate to the Electoral College should vote.
I would love to see a study of how many electoral votes each candidate would have received, if the winner take all model were not used in previous Presidential elections.
If there were a federal law, or amendment that required the members of the Electoral College to vote per the outcome of the election in each Congressional District, we would see a more accurate representation of voters’ intent.
I believe Trump would have received electoral votes from California and other states, that were assigned to Hillary, because of the winner take all system. The reverse is also true, but looking at the red and blue electoral map, I think the Dems would have lost in previous elections that went their way.
Black people need to start getting aware of the democrats reasoning. Pure democracy does not help ethnic minorities at all.
***************
Two lions and a lamb deciding what’s for dinner.
In a pure democracy half the vote plus one has enormous impact. What happens when one side decides to censor, imprison, or persecute a minority group, because the minority group can’t get a majority to vote with them.
I think, in practice, that this is still the case.
I'd urge people to investigate how their own states vet candidates for the Electoral College. In my state, people apply to their party to be an Elector. The party reviews all the applications and selects a slate, which is forwarded to the campaign for final approval.
I don't know if the parties pack their slate with Electors from a few urban areas or if they strive to choose electors from across all districts. I suspect it comes down to a few things: 1) the Constitutional requirement that an Elector not hold any other office, 2) contribution history to the party, 3) participation as delegates in state events, and 4) willingness to pay all costs related to being an Elector.
-PJ
The track record of most if not all large cities (run by democrats) speaks for itself...They cannot manage cities efficiently, why would should they run the country?!?!
This might make a nice rebuttal essay or talk radio piece to counter liberals talking about how Hillary Clinton "won the popular vote." In the case of Clinton, it might not make the point since we all suspect the excess votes come from illegal voters in California. However...
If we were to add, say, another 100 Representatives to Congress, increasing the Electoral College to 635, and reapportion the extra 100 Electoral College votes across the states, how would that look? What's the case for 150, 200?
Set aside the logistical arguments re: room in the Capitol, housing for staff, etc., and focus on the change in dynamics. How would a national narrative evolve?
First, the problem statement might be the under-representation of voters as evidenced by the split in popular vote versus Electoral College vote. The proposition is not to eliminate the Electoral College, but to increase it to properly represent the 235% increase in population since the 1910 census that was used to cap the House of Representatives at 435.
Next, the topic of apportionment must be addressed. Is it simply a matter of adding x% to each state based on their current allocation of the whole? Would that change the current "swing state" dynamic if we simply inflated the numbers equally? Could less populated large states make the argument that they are "owed" districts because the federal government took lands from them that limited their ability to grow, permanently relegating them to minority House (and by extension, Electoral College) status? After all, they still have to care for this land; maybe this could open up the debate over ceding this land back to the states and whatever results from that.
After that, the "what-ifs" can begin.
What if, on average, each state received two more Congressional districts? What about four more? How would they determine those districts? This opens up the gerrymandering debate currently heading to SCOTUS. Do states have enough wiggle room to hide these new districts in snake-like geographies that boggle the mind, or would this force some calls for "fairness" in the setting of Congressional districts going forward?
What if 100+ more Representatives meant a dilution of "talent" in Congress, like with expansion teams in professional sports? Can something grow beyond the limits of the population to generate qualified participants? I think the latest class of Representatives offers opportunities: if the newest Reps who swung the House to Democrats was good enough for Pelosi, then why would even more "regular people" in the House be a bad thing? After all, they're just representing the local nature of the people of their districts, right?
What if 100+ more Representatives meant a threat to the current incumbent power structure? How would current leadership wield power over 50 or more "country bumpkins" from flyover country who suddenly showed up with the mandate from their districts? Can their be a critical mass beyond which the current leadership can no longer threaten their caucus into acquiescence? Naturally, a new order would emerge; would this be multi-party or would it be a rise of the "normals?" At some tipping point, the "elite" class would be overwhelmed by numbers by the rest of us.
What if 100+ more Representatives meant an opportunity to argue for restoring the Senate back to state appointment? Could people be convinced that the current disfunction in Congress is the result of a Senate that lost its way, and reconnecting it with their states while increasing the people's representation in the House was the solution?
These are just a few ideas for national discussions that could arise from the Electoral College discussion, if framed properly as a long-overdue growth in representation in the House of Representatives. I'd love to hear what others think a debate would look like, and how even just discussing this might put fear in our politicians.
-PJ
Tyranny of the Majority...
https://edsitement.neh.gov/curriculum-unit/alexis-de-tocqueville-tyranny-majority
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.