Democrats Dangerously Close To Changing Laws So President Is Elected By Popular Vote - Printable Version +- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com) +-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums) +--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0) +--- Thread: Democrats Dangerously Close To Changing Laws So President Is Elected By Popular Vote (/Thread-Democrats-Dangerously-Close-To-Changing-Laws-So-President-Is-Elected-By-Popular-Vote) |
Democrats Dangerously Close To Changing Laws So President Is Elected By Popular Vote - GMDino - 07-29-2022 By the time you get to the part of their argument where they say Democrats are trying to change laws to influence elections you realize irony is not only dead but that the Federalist Society dug up the corpse and had it's way with it, multiple times, before hanging it in a window for all to see. https://thefederalist.com/2022/07/28/democrats-are-dangerously-close-to-changing-laws-so-our-president-is-elected-by-popular-vote/ Quote:The left’s push for a popular vote for the presidency directly undermines the electoral system established by our Constitution. RE: Democrats Dangerously Close To Changing Laws So President Is Elected By Popular Vote - CKwi88 - 07-29-2022 That's an awful lot of words for "The GOP can't win in a straight popular vote". RE: Democrats Dangerously Close To Changing Laws So President Is Elected By Popular Vote - BigPapaKain - 07-29-2022 (07-29-2022, 01:19 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: That's an awful lot of words for "The GOP can't win in a straight popular vote". By their own admission. Maybe they should have a platform that isn't a variation of '**** you I got mine'. RE: Democrats Dangerously Close To Changing Laws So President Is Elected By Popular Vote - samhain - 07-29-2022 (07-29-2022, 01:19 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: That's an awful lot of words for "The GOP can't win in a straight popular vote". Never underestimate the power of gerrymandering. RE: Democrats Dangerously Close To Changing Laws So President Is Elected By Popular Vote - Forever Spinning Vinyl - 07-29-2022 I honestly embrace this, even though I don't think it will go through, and not because I want the Democrats to win every election, because I don't. In my opinion, this is pretty much the only way that the GOP will forced to abandon their caveman politics and actually compromise and adjust to an ever changing world. This may also increase the already puny chance of a legitimate third party to rise up and make a difference other than just gleaning votes from one side. RE: Democrats Dangerously Close To Changing Laws So President Is Elected By Popular Vote - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 07-29-2022 It is interesting watching people display profound ignorance about the Constitution and its deliberate efforts to prevent the tyranny of the majority. Straight majority rule was something they actively strove against, hence the Senate. Oh wait, that's something the Dems want to radically alter as well. Isn't that interesting? RE: Democrats Dangerously Close To Changing Laws So President Is Elected By Popular Vote - Nately120 - 07-29-2022 (07-29-2022, 01:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It is interesting watching people display profound ignorance about the Constitution and its deliberate efforts to prevent the tyranny of the majority. Straight majority rule was something they actively strove against, hence the Senate. Oh wait, that's something the Dems want to radically alter as well. Isn't that interesting? Aren't we flirting with straight minority rule? I always assume bad intentions and tyrants will seek the easiest path to victory. I will admit I have some recency bias here since the closest thing I've seen to a tyrant in my mind is Trump and the popular vote would have kept him from ever attaining power. RE: Democrats Dangerously Close To Changing Laws So President Is Elected By Popular Vote - BigPapaKain - 07-29-2022 (07-29-2022, 01:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It is interesting watching people display profound ignorance about the Constitution and its deliberate efforts to prevent the tyranny of the majority. Straight majority rule was something they actively strove against, hence the Senate. Oh wait, that's something the Dems want to radically alter as well. Isn't that interesting? Not nearly as interesting as watching people froth at the mouth to install an autocratic ruler or a full on oligarchy. But I guess if you're happy with the literal do nothing Republicans that's on you. RE: Democrats Dangerously Close To Changing Laws So President Is Elected By Popular Vote - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 07-29-2022 (07-29-2022, 02:20 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Aren't we flirting with straight minority rule? I always assume bad intentions and tyrants will seek the easiest path to victory. How so? Have the Dems been unable to pass any legislation since holding the White House and both branches of Congress? Quote:I will admit I have some recency bias here since the closest thing I've seen to a tyrant in my mind is Trump and the popular vote would have kept him from ever attaining power. Understandable. But that, on its own, is not a reason to completely undue a keystone of our nations governance. Let's put it this way, and the answer is patently obvious, would all the people clamoring for these changes be of the same opinion if their ideological opponents were currently the "majority'? We both know the answer is a huge, hell no. It's built into us to whinge about things when they don't go our way and then laud the same rules when the benefit us, look no further than SCOTUS for perfect examples. If rule are consistently applied then they will benefit you at times and not others. Actively trying to change the rules when they don't is the absolute beginning of the disintegration of governance. Take packing the SCOTUS for example. The rational people on the left correctly point out that doing so will simply enable the GOP to do the exact same thing when they're, inevitably, in power. Then we end up with a SCOTUS with 100+ justices. No, if you want foundational change then it absolutely must come from within the current framework, otherwise just start the clock ticking on the nation's disintegration. Not that that hasn't already happened, an argument can certainly be made. RE: Democrats Dangerously Close To Changing Laws So President Is Elected By Popular Vote - pally - 07-29-2022 Changing the Senate, absent a Constitutional amendment which will never happen, will only occur if places like Puerto Rico finally are admitted as state. However, what no one ever talks about, is that the size of the House of Representatives is entirely in the hands of Congress itself. The House was artificially set at 435 over 100 years ago by statute. This move totally screwed up the intention of the Founders to have the House be proportionally representative of each state's population. For instance, California should have at least 13 more seats than they do based on their nearly 40 million citizens vs Wyoming's 600,000 if districts were based on the lowest population. If we go back to the Constitution, Article I, section 2, clause 3, there was supposed to be 1 seat per every 30,000 in population with a minimum of 1 per state. Using that number California should have 1333 districts. I admit that 1333 is unwieldy, but uncapping the size of the House to at least allow for the seat to be properly apportioned would ease some of the issues surrounding the electoral college. RE: Democrats Dangerously Close To Changing Laws So President Is Elected By Popular Vote - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 07-29-2022 (07-29-2022, 02:53 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Not nearly as interesting as watching people froth at the mouth to install an autocratic ruler or a full on oligarchy. Another interesting accusation from you. I assume we'll get the same cogent and logical argument backing up your claim as we did in the other threads. RE: Democrats Dangerously Close To Changing Laws So President Is Elected By Popular Vote - BigPapaKain - 07-29-2022 (07-29-2022, 02:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Another interesting accusation from you. I assume we'll get the same cogent and logical argument backing up your claim as we did in the other threads. Not an accusation, just a statement. But if the shoe fits, I'm sure you'll lick it. RE: Democrats Dangerously Close To Changing Laws So President Is Elected By Popular Vote - Belsnickel - 07-29-2022 (07-29-2022, 01:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It is interesting watching people display profound ignorance about the Constitution and its deliberate efforts to prevent the tyranny of the majority. Straight majority rule was something they actively strove against, hence the Senate. Oh wait, that's something the Dems want to radically alter as well. Isn't that interesting? Allowing for a popular vote for POTUS doesn't equate to straight majority rule. That is a terrible argument for maintaining the EC. First, the EC wasn't about preventing majority rule. It was about letting the elites pick the president because the average citizen would not know the individuals running. This was, of course, after they moved on from having Congress pick the president which was the same thing. It had nothing to do with preventing majority rule. This is one of the biggest lies in this whole discussion. Second, POTUS doesn't "rule." We don't have a ruler. Congress is who makes the laws. Each person in Congress represents a geographical area. The Senate is there to provide this parity you mention, and that is fine. It is a good system. POTUS doesn't rule, though, and they can be put in check by Congress or SCOTUS. Those are the real checks on the office. Third, the EC is an outdated system that is not even being used as it was intended from the start. As previously mentioned, it exists based on the premise that the average citizen will not even know the candidate for POTUS but they would know a person they would trust to cast a vote on their behalf for POTUS. This is no longer the case. How many people in this country actually cast their ballot for an Elector in this country? The answer is zero. Most people, the vast majority, could not even tell you who the Electors would be if their preferred candidate won. We don't actually use the system as designed. It is only maintained to reduce the power of the citizenry in deciding an election. And the last point for this soapbox of mine for today is that the role of POTUS is not to oversee the states. That's not the job. The role is to run the executive branch and be the Commander in Chief and the Diplomat in Chief. They have no authority over Congress, over the governors, over anyone other than federal executive branch employees. So the idea that the states choose the POTUS instead of the people is asinine. It is rooted in antiquated thinking that is actually rooted in the ideals of the Articles of Confederation and not the Constitution under which our government is formed. RE: Democrats Dangerously Close To Changing Laws So President Is Elected By Popular Vote - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 07-29-2022 (07-29-2022, 03:17 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Allowing for a popular vote for POTUS doesn't equate to straight majority rule. That is a terrible argument for maintaining the EC. Alternatively, it was to allow the states of the United States to each have their own say in who is President of the United States. Quote:Second, POTUS doesn't "rule." We don't have a ruler. Congress is who makes the laws. Each person in Congress represents a geographical area. The Senate is there to provide this parity you mention, and that is fine. It is a good system. POTUS doesn't rule, though, and they can be put in check by Congress or SCOTUS. Those are the real checks on the office. I was speaking of the general intent of the Framers, not only in regard to the presidency, which I addressed above. Quote:Third, the EC is an outdated system that is not even being used as it was intended from the start. As previously mentioned, it exists based on the premise that the average citizen will not even know the candidate for POTUS but they would know a person they would trust to cast a vote on their behalf for POTUS. This is no longer the case. How many people in this country actually cast their ballot for an Elector in this country? The answer is zero. Most people, the vast majority, could not even tell you who the Electors would be if their preferred candidate won. We don't actually use the system as designed. It is only maintained to reduce the power of the citizenry in deciding an election. I disagree that that was the sole intention behind the EC, again as I explained above. If the states don't have their own say in who is POTUS then why the hell do we have them in the first place? As you know the system was created intentionally to give the states a large degree of autonomy, the EC is just on facet of that. Quote:And the last point for this soapbox of mine for today is that the role of POTUS is not to oversee the states. That's not the job. The role is to run the executive branch and be the Commander in Chief and the Diplomat in Chief. They have no authority over Congress, over the governors, over anyone other than federal executive branch employees. So the idea that the states choose the POTUS instead of the people is asinine. It is rooted in antiquated thinking that is actually rooted in the ideals of the Articles of Confederation and not the Constitution under which our government is formed. Again, this is an argument directed at a point that wasn't being made, but I understand how you came to that conclusion. RE: Democrats Dangerously Close To Changing Laws So President Is Elected By Popular Vote - Belsnickel - 07-29-2022 (07-29-2022, 03:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Alternatively, it was to allow the states of the United States to each have their own say in who is President of the United States. I'm just addressing these three together: the purpose of the EC was because the framers knew the general public would not know the people running for president. Full stop. We know this because it is in the notes from the Constitutional Congress. The number of electors was a compromise done in a similar fashion as congressional numbers, but the entire purpose of it was because they didn't want the power in the hands of Congress as that would effectively eliminate one of the checks and because they knew the people would know have the information needed. The whole idea that it was so the states could have a say is hokum. (07-29-2022, 03:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Again, this is an argument directed at a point that wasn't being made, but I understand how you came to that conclusion. Except, you proceeded to make the argument. I knew it would be coming. RE: Democrats Dangerously Close To Changing Laws So President Is Elected By Popular Vote - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 07-29-2022 (07-29-2022, 03:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm just addressing these three together: the purpose of the EC was because the framers knew the general public would not know the people running for president. Full stop. We know this because it is in the notes from the Constitutional Congress. The number of electors was a compromise done in a similar fashion as congressional numbers, but the entire purpose of it was because they didn't want the power in the hands of Congress as that would effectively eliminate one of the checks and because they knew the people would know have the information needed. The whole idea that it was so the states could have a say is hokum. I don't disagree with your point, other than it being the only reason for the EC. Again, why invest so much autonomy in the states, largely because of a fear of an overly powerful federal government, and then not give said states any say in the election of the POTUS? RE: Democrats Dangerously Close To Changing Laws So President Is Elected By Popular Vote - Belsnickel - 07-29-2022 (07-29-2022, 04:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't disagree with your point, other than it being the only reason for the EC. Again, why invest so much autonomy in the states, largely because of a fear of an overly powerful federal government, and then not give said states any say in the election of the POTUS? Because they learned that too much autonomy was a bad thing, plus the executive wasn't considered to have much power. During the convention, the original idea for selecting the executive was that it would be chosen by the legislature. In fact, it was so much a done deal that there are very few notes on the debate because there wasn't much of one. There were a handful of vocal opponents, though, who wanted popular vote because the idea of the legislature choosing the executive was counter to the idea of the separation of powers and they anticipated corruption. The idea of the legislature choosing them was simple: they would be the ones who would know the candidates. However, two other ideas were proposed. The first alternative was the idea that states, either through their legislature or by their governor, would select the executive. This idea received the least support of the options. So why did this idea receive the least support if the whole idea of the EC was for the states to have a say? Well, because that wasn't a reason. The convention knew that this power in the hands of the states was an even more corrupt idea than the federal legislature because they had just wrapped up a short-lived experiment under the Articles of Confederation. The EC was a compromise solution between the idea of the federal legislature selecting the executive and the popular vote. It is entirely based on the idea of preserving the separation of powers while also acknowledging that the general public would not know who the candidates are for a federal office, so they would vote for a more local person who they would trust to vote in their best interests. That's it. Any other attempts to paint it in some other fashion is romanticizing it. The framers thought the general public would be too ignorant to vote on the executive and that the federal legislature would be too corrupt. RE: Democrats Dangerously Close To Changing Laws So President Is Elected By Popular Vote - treee - 07-29-2022 Every single portion of our federal government has the ability to be ruled by a minority of voters. The House by gerrymandering, the Senate by being allocated not based on population, the presidency due to the electoral college, and the Supreme Court because they are appointed by the aforementioned Senate and Presidency. I think having a branch of government actually be directly tied to the popular vote would be a good thing. As it stands now our politicians are seemingly less beholden to voters than they ever have been BECAUSE there is no guarantee that the will of majority will be represented in any fashion. RE: Democrats Dangerously Close To Changing Laws So President Is Elected By Popular Vote - BigPapaKain - 07-29-2022 (07-29-2022, 05:08 PM)treee Wrote: Every single portion of our federal government has the ability to be ruled by a minority of voters. The House by gerrymandering, the Senate by being allocated not based on population, the presidency due to the electoral college, and the Supreme Court because they are appointed by the aforementioned Senate and Presidency. Tyranny of the minority. RE: Democrats Dangerously Close To Changing Laws So President Is Elected By Popular Vote - Leon - 07-29-2022 (07-29-2022, 05:08 PM)treee Wrote: Every single portion of our federal government has the ability to be ruled by a minority of voters. The House by gerrymandering, the Senate by being allocated not based on population, the presidency due to the electoral college, and the Supreme Court because they are appointed by the aforementioned Senate and Presidency. using popular vote in president election is terrible idea. that means places like california and ny have way to much say. thats why the left wants this to happen, they cant win any other way in 2024. |