2020 Election

[Dill]

(11-06-2020, 12:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This argument makes no sense to me. I don't really see the logic in it.



I'm going to kind of address these both (and some other posts) in this way. We have a federalist system, yes. However, our federalist system is not a neat and tidy straight line system like they teach in high school government. Federalism is a mess. It has evolved over the years from dual federalism at the founding to things like marble cake, picket fence, etc. The point here is that federalism is messy and isn't really what most people think it is.

The biggest thing to keep in mind with this, though, is that the federal government grew. It grew in the Progressive era and then under FDR it became the bureaucracy we all know and love. The role of the POTUS is to run this government, this federal bureaucracy, and represent it around the world. The president is not in charge of the governors, they're not in charge of the states in any way, really. The president is in charge of the federal bureaucracy which is a government of, by, and for the people of this country. Not the states; the people. The EC was a compromise from the start and it had some value among a citizenry that was never going to hear or see the POTUS because it was a far-away figure. But in the modern era, with our modern government, those truths are no longer there. The EC is an antiquated system that does nothing but over-complicates our elections and makes our system less representative of the people. The majority in both major parties as well as independents knew this prior to 2016.

But does the EC make our system less representative of states? That is a question still important to me.

That our federal system is not what we learned in high school, and/or is messy, has changed over time etc., is not in itself reason to weaken state power vis a vis federal. 

And it still seems to me that going directly to a popular vote for the Exec would create a serious imbalance in power between rural and urban STATES.  For me its about THAT and not whether a farmer's individual vote counts more than a city dweller's. 

I am happy that so-called NATIONAL parties must pay attention to small "battleground" states every election. 

As I said in a previous post, when people are asking why an individual farmer's vote in North Dakota should count more than an individual bank teller in New York City, it seems to me they have simply erased the dual system and are regarding the US as a French/Japanese-style unitary government. Unfair that Arturo's vote should count more than a Parisian's. So it's unfair if a North Dakota farmer's vote count's more than the NY bank teller's, but perfectly fair if a load of Caly/NY votes opens a public lands in ND to strip mining.

I don't claim to have this all sorted out. I am still pondering comparisons with other federal systems comprising regional governments with strong, distinct identities, and powers protected from the central gov. (e.g. Germany and Switzerland) and so, in theory, am open to dissuasion.