Posted on 12/23/2004 8:40:52 AM PST by 1066AD
Fortunately in this event we are not dependent upon these weasels and the ignorant masses for our protection. Said proposed ammendment will not make it through both houses of congress. All it will take is 1/3 + 1 vote in either house to oppose it. Even were it to pass both houses by the requisite 2/3 majority, it would then need 3/4 of the state legislatures to ratify if. About 1/3 of the red-states alone would be sufficient to stop it.
Sure, if we're going to do that, let's just do away with the senate. Why on earth do we need the senate if we're going to one man, one vote?
It isn't because of communications that we need it. The issue has to do with distribution of electoral power, not who wields that power, which nowdays is in the hands of the voters of the states almost exclusively.
zYou might regard the actual assembly of electors as an anachronism, though it is a charming one. One of these days something might happen which will make us happy that the electors are sentient humans rather than computor wired up to the popular vote count in the various states.
She can make all the noise she wants. The entire subject is DOA.
This one is a non-starter. No small population state will go with it.
Been predicting this -- here we go!
Two options =
Give every county regardless of population one vote (90% are red)Bush wins
or
Give every congressional district one vote and whoever wins in each state gets the two extra votes. Bush wins
and
Mr. GOVERNr. MORRIS was pointedly agst. his being so chosen. He will be the mere creature of the Legisl: if appointed & impeachable by that body. He ought to be elected by the people at large, by the freeholders of the Country. That difficulties attend this mode, he admits. But they have been found superable in N. Y. & in Cont. and would he believed be found so, in the case of an Executive for the U. States. If the people should elect, they will never fail to prefer some man of distinguished character, or services; some man, if he might so speak, of continental reputation. -- If the Legislature elect, it will be the work of intrigue, of cabal, and of faction; it will be like the election of a pope by a conclave of cardinals; real merit will rarely be the title to the appointment. He moved to strike out "National Legislature" & insert "citizens of [21] U.S."
Mr. SHERMAN thought that the sense of the Nation would be better expressed by the Legislature, than by the people at large. The latter will never be sufficiently informed of characters, and besides will never give a majority of votes to any one man. They will generally vote for some man in their own State, and the largest State will have the best chance for the appointment. If the choice be made by the Legislre. A majority of voices may be made necessary to constitute an election.
Sherman's argument is that most people would not know anything about the candidate and is his character.
I take this, as have many others, to mean communications. How would anyone, in New York or New Hampshire the 1780s, know of someone in Georgia or the Carolinas. The media as we know of it today did not exist. A news story was considered newsworthy for months, as long as no one else locally published it.
The Swift Boat Veterans, among others, quickly pointed out the flaws in John Kerry's character, but this is the result of modern communications. Even postal services at the time took months to move a letter from Point A to Point B. Newspapers could be counted by the dozens rather than hundreds or thousands.
Sherman feared that the general public wouldn't know enough to make an informed decision on an issue as important as electing the chief executive. Clearly, we are all better informed today.
Also as clearly, the founding fathers were not all in agreement on this issue. Many, at the time, felt that the use of an electoral system unnecessary.
Regardless of that, The founding father also felt that time and progress would require that the constritution be changed and modified from time to time. They felt that it should be a difficult process, but the fact that they left the ability to make any changes whatsoever obviously indicates that they knew changes would come, and that the Constitution was NOT to be carved in stone.
No, the only states where the campaign takes place are the big states with large numbers of electoral votes.
the argument that the electoral college protects the small states fails to take into account that the the majority of electorates are determined by the number of House members each state has, which is determined by population. The small states get screwed either way.
Look at the states where the candidates most actively campaigned--Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio. These are some of the largest states in terms of electoral votes.
My arguments are elsewhere in the thread. Go read them.
Indeed, let me up the ante. Since we are willing to dispense with representative government, and go with the mob, what of the Constitution itself? "What an impediment The Constitution is to the will of the mob! Let there still be laws, for sure. But let the laws be a simple result of the votes of the mob. We've gotten a taste of this with the initiative processes in certain states, such as mine. Let us make the rule of law entirely subject to one man, one vote and NOTHING ELSE!
"Now, about those annoying checks and balances.Who needs the Executive Branch or the Judicial Branch?" .... etc...
If it were up to me, the states would abandon PC practice of staging a plebiscite (what the state vote really is) and APPOINT the electors directly. The other change would be to make the vote by the electors secret and free. You would be surprised how the quality of presidents would improve!
BTW, Massachusetts would be better off by sending the Red Sox team to the College. :)
I seriously wish someone would throw that out there and see how fast she retreats.
Obvious examples of this are ending slavery and the votes for people other than white land owners. These are positive moves on the part of our government over the years.
To me, the easiest thing to do is put it to a vote. Call for a constitutional convention, address the issue, and see what the general population wants to do. Should it become apparent that the electoral college is deemed unnecessary, then so be it.
I have read Madison's Journal as well as a book (cannot remember the author), "Miracle in Philadelphia." Sherman and others were concerned that the general public would not know enough about the candidates to make an informed decision. Why? Because it often took news weeks and months to travel from one end of the country to the other. Hence we have the Battle of New Orleans bein fought after the end of the War of 1812 because Gen. Andrew Jackson had not heard that the war had ended.
Modern communications methods have eliminated that concern.
The concern was not communication. Let me put this simply. The concern was (and still is) the domination of mostly rural states by more urban ones. The concern already existed as early as the late 1780s, vis a vis New York and Virginia, versus the other states. Why do you fail to address this? Stop trying to steer the argument into the red herring of "communications!"
I thought you were familiar, now I know why. You were also arguing on anothre thread that we should no longer require the US President to be native born. You're a real "anything goes" sort of person, aren't you? I bet you are a Baby Boomer, probably an "ex" Hippie. Far out, man.
Mr. SHERMAN thought that the sense of the Nation would be better expressed by the Legislature, than by the people at large. The latter will never be sufficiently informed of characters, and besides will never give a majority of votes to any one man. They will generally vote for some man in their own State, and the largest State will have the best chance for the appointment. If the choice be made by the Legislre. A majority of voices may be made necessary to constitute an election.
I believe my interpretation is just as valid as yours to this particular comment by Sherman.
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.