America - The Official Thread

[Biggles]

The electoral college was put in place to prevent small locations from determining what the country as a whole wants.

What is a "small location"? Surely democracy, in whatever form it takes, has to do with human beings. You think voting should be based on acreage? I guess we're going to have to massively increase the representation for Alaska.

 

[Danoff]

Maybe it should and maybe it shouldn't. Lets have a vote on it so you can be happy. The procedure for this decision vote is specified in our highest law, the constitution.

As was prohibition, the 3/5ths compromise, and veeeeery nearly, slavery.

 

[Dotini]

Roosevelt tried packing the Supreme Court, but failed somehow. Is it time for a reprise?

 

[Danoff]

Roosevelt tried packing the Supreme Court, but failed somehow. Is it time for a reprise?

It was the discovery of a loophole that left the three branches of government with two unequal ones. It broke the government.

 

[huskeR32]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here.

Could you at least try to answer this?

Why is letting Wyoming decide what California gets better than the inverse?

--

Maybe it should and maybe it shouldn't. Lets have a vote on it so you can be happy. The procedure for this decision vote is specified in our highest law, the constitution.

Good point, I forgot that the constitution has never been changed.

 

[TetsuKobura]

Could you at least try to answer this?

I didn't know people are fleeing from Wyoming to live in California.

 

[huskeR32]

I didn't know people are fleeing from Wyoming to live in California.

What?

It started here:

It’s not a perfect system, but it’s better than letting Los Angeles decide what Wyoming, Colorado, North/South Dakota, Kansas, etc. want.

You're saying that it's bad for people in heavily populated areas (i.e. Los Angeles, i.e. California) to "decide" what people in lightly populated areas (i.e. Wyoming) get.

The electoral college essentially creates the opposite - the lightly populated areas gave us our current president despite his decisive loss in the popular vote - and you don't seem to have a problem with that.

So, why do you think it's okay for Wyoming to decide what California gets, but not the other way around?

 

[TetsuKobura]

What?

It started here:



You're saying that it's bad for people in heavily populated areas (i.e. Los Angeles, i.e. California) to "decide" what people in lightly populated areas (i.e. Wyoming) get.

The electoral college essentially creates the opposite - the lightly populated areas gave us our current president despite his decisive loss in the popular vote - and you don't seem to have a problem with that.

So, why do you think it's okay for Wyoming to decide what California gets, but not the other way around?

If you actually read my original post, I clearly said it wasn't a perfect system.

 

[huskeR32]

If you actually read my original post, I clearly said it wasn't a perfect system.

Yes, but you also clearly said this:

The electoral college was put in place to prevent small locations from determining what the country as a whole wants. It’s not a perfect system, but it’s better than letting Los Angeles decide what Wyoming, Colorado, North/South Dakota, Kansas, etc. want.

Why is it better?

 

[TetsuKobura]

Because it gives small states a voice? If it's such a problem for you, then tell your congressmen to do another census of some sort and redistribute the electoral votes. Pretty sure it's been done before. California and other Western states will get more electoral votes as a result.

 

[Danoff]

Because it gives small states a voice?

That's what the senate is for.

If it's such a problem for you, then tell your congressmen to do another census of some sort and redistribute the electoral votes. Pretty sure it's been done before. California and other Western states will get more electoral votes as a result.

The electoral college changes the votes of people who voted for the losing party in each state and rewrites their votes for the winner, it also writes in votes for people who didn't vote (and historically, couldn't vote). It's profoundly undemocratic.

 

[TetsuKobura]

The electoral college changes the votes of people who voted for the losing party in each state and rewrites their votes for the winner, it also writes in votes for people who didn't vote (and historically, couldn't vote). It's profoundly undemocratic.

We aren’t a democracy, though. We’re a Republic.

 

[Exorcet]

Because it gives small states a voice? If it's such a problem for you, then tell your congressmen to do another census of some sort and redistribute the electoral votes. Pretty sure it's been done before. California and other Western states will get more electoral votes as a result.

I think the votes of people should be more valuable than the votes of states. Sovereignty, self determination, or whatever you want to call it should be handled by limiting the ability of some groups to influence others, not the other way around.

 

[Joey D]

The electoral college still only gives a few states an ultimate voice too. Ohio is probably the most important, but so are other swing states like Colorado, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Florida.

Essentially you can count the entire west coast to go blue along with New England. The south and the central part of the country will go red. That leaves just a few outliers that end up determining who gets the presidency.

If we want to keep the electoral college, it'd probably be better to split the electoral votes based on the percentage each candidate received in each state. Take Ohio for example and it's 18 electoral votes. Say the GOP candidate gets 60% of the popular vote in the state, they'd get 11 of those votes with the remaining 7 going towards the DNC candidate (or whoever).

I know states can split their votes, but I don't think it's a super common thing for them to do.

 

[Danoff]

We aren’t a democracy, though. We’re a Republic.

We're a constitutionally-limited democratic republic. The electoral college was designed specifically not to represent the people. It was a way for slave states to increase their influence in the presidency by counting slaves, women, non-landowning men, and people who voted incorrectly, and voting on their behalf.

We don't need the EC vote-laundering any more. It was wrong the whole way through. If you're worried about small states, we have a whole Senate to take care of them.

 

[huskeR32]

Because it gives small states a voice? If it's such a problem for you, then tell your congressmen to do another census of some sort and redistribute the electoral votes. Pretty sure it's been done before. California and other Western states will get more electoral votes as a result.

Christ, this is getting really circular. I understand the reasoning behind the electoral college, I don't need it explained. And yes, it has been done before, electoral votes match the number of members in Congress, which changes with every decennial census. My problem isn't with any of that.

You said, in no uncertain terms, that Wyoming deciding things for California is better than California deciding things for Wyoming. Or, in the terms you want to use now, a small state deciding things for a big state is better than a big state deciding things for a small state.

WHY? Why is it so obvious to you that that's a better situation?

 

[PocketZeven]

Do you mean what's wrong with having an electoral college, giving smaller states additional importance in a national election?

I don't know that there's any one true form of democracy. I suppose the truest form comes when the voters directly enact the laws without going through representatives in congress, parliament, etc. Perhaps this was the case in ancient Greece, or more recently in Switzerland.

There is government on state level to deal with specific needs of its population. On a national level its quite undemocratic to have one persons vote for example count as 1.5 person and another as 0.7 person.

Edit:

Popular vote exists for each state. The populations of those states determine who elects their state representatives and senators. The electoral college was put in place to prevent small locations from determining what the country as a whole wants. It’s not a perfect system, but it’s better than letting Los Angeles decide what Wyoming, Colorado, North/South Dakota, Kansas, etc. want.

So the vote of a person who lives on a large farm or ranch counts more, then the person who rents a small new york appartment?

 

[Joey D]

Welp looks like Trump doesn't respect the system of checks and balances.

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/15/7037...ressional-effort-to-limit-border-wall-funding

I found this to be an interesting quote in the article:

"We had a war against a king in the American revolution," said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn. "This would be the first time that a president has ever asked for a certain amount of money from Congress, Congress has refused to provide it, and then the president has declared a national emergency under the 1976 act and said, 'I'm going to spend the money anyway.'"

I looked around and it appears Sen Alexander is correct in saying this is a first, but I don't know that as a fact. Assuming it's true, it's a rather worrisome abuse of power by Trump and is the start to a dark path the country could go down. I still have a hard time understanding why people still support him, especially those conservatives that talk about tyranny and wave the "don't tread on me" flags. Trump is very much treading on America citizens by ignoring how the government is supposed to function.

Assuming it doesn't get overturned, I still think there's a long road ahead for the wall. It will undoubtedly face cost overruns and fleece the taxpayers for even more money than it is now. Also, I'm curious how they plan on using eminent domain to acquire the land. If there's one thing that would bring me to the brink of losing my crap, it'd be if the government came in and took my property.

 

[Danoff]

If there's one thing that would bring me to the brink of losing my crap, it'd be if the government came in and took my property.

Definitely do not read kelo v. new london. It's horrific.

 

[PocketZeven]

Welp looks like Trump doesn't respect the system of checks and balances.

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/15/7037...ressional-effort-to-limit-border-wall-funding

I found this to be an interesting quote in the article:



I looked around and it appears Sen Alexander is correct in saying this is a first, but I don't know that as a fact. Assuming it's true, it's a rather worrisome abuse of power by Trump and is the start to a dark path the country could go down. I still have a hard time understanding why people still support him, especially those conservatives that talk about tyranny and wave the "don't tread on me" flags. Trump is very much treading on America citizens by ignoring how the government is supposed to function.

Assuming it doesn't get overturned, I still think there's a long road ahead for the wall. It will undoubtedly face cost overruns and fleece the taxpayers for even more money than it is now. Also, I'm curious how they plan on using eminent domain to acquire the land. If there's one thing that would bring me to the brink of losing my crap, it'd be if the government came in and took my property.

I guess the one promise he is keeping, is that he was going to run the country as a business. It is worrysome that this kind of abuse of power somehow isnt protected in the constitution?

 

[Joey D]

Definitely do not read kelo v. new london. It's horrific.

I remember that case, and yes it's pretty horrific. I seem to remember President Bush issued an executive order as a result of it but I can't remember what it all entailed.

I guess the one promise he is keeping, is that he was going to run the country as a business. It is worrysome that this kind of abuse of power somehow isnt protected in the constitution?

There is, we have a set of check and balances built into the Constitution to prevent things like this from happening. However, when the government ignores its founding document things get sketchy. If we're still a nation of freedom and upholding the Constitution, Trump's executive order shouldn't hold up in the Supreme Court. But, since the Supreme Court has ended up politicalized I doubt that will happen.

Forget Russia, forget Stormy Daniel, forget potential campaign fraud. It's stuff like this that needs to be talked about and not just in a way that results in "Trump's bad". It needs to be looked at by all politicians, who agreed to uphold the Constitution, as an abuse of power by one of the branches of government.

 

[PocketZeven]

I remember that case, and yes it's pretty horrific. I seem to remember President Bush issued an executive order as a result of it but I can't remember what it all entailed.



There is, we have a set of check and balances built into the Constitution to prevent things like this from happening. However, when the government ignores its founding document things get sketchy. If we're still a nation of freedom and upholding the Constitution, Trump's executive order shouldn't hold up in the Supreme Court. But, since the Supreme Court has ended up politicalized I doubt that will happen.

Forget Russia, forget Stormy Daniel, forget potential campaign fraud. It's stuff like this that needs to be talked about and not just in a way that results in "Trump's bad". It needs to be looked at by all politicians, who agreed to uphold the Constitution, as an abuse of power by one of the branches of government.

Is there a way to override or block his veto? A presidential veto in circumstances like these seem like a lopehole in the law.

edit:
I understand that congress or either the senate need 2/3 vote to override his veto?

 

[Biggles]

There is, we have a set of check and balances built into the Constitution to prevent things like this from happening. However, when the government ignores its founding document things get sketchy. If we're still a nation of freedom and upholding the Constitution, Trump's executive order shouldn't hold up in the Supreme Court. But, since the Supreme Court has ended up politicalized I doubt that will happen.

Forget Russia, forget Stormy Daniel, forget potential campaign fraud. It's stuff like this that needs to be talked about and not just in a way that results in "Trump's bad". It needs to be looked at by all politicians, who agreed to uphold the Constitution, as an abuse of power by one of the branches of government.

I was driving through DC yesterday afternoon on 295, behind the Capital building, listening to CSpan as US Senators, Democrat & Republic, stood up & condemned Trump's attempt to usurp the role of the Congress to "control the purse". It's another disturbing thing about Donald Trump - he appears to have no understanding or respect for the constitutional nature of US government. I think he sees his role as the boss of a big company with the right to exercise sole executive power & the courts & Congress as annoying impediments to his ability to use this power. It also explains his apparent admiration for leaders like Putin, Kim Jong-un & Duterte.

 

[eran0004]

We aren’t a democracy, though. We’re a Republic.

And a representative democracy.

 

[Liquid]

veeeeery nearly, slavery.

How very nearly? I am interested to know.

 

[Danoff]

How very nearly? I am interested to know.

Check out the Corwin Amendment, which was supported by Lincoln, and was drafted in an attempt to avoid civil war.

https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2013/02/18/the-other-13th-richard-albert
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment

 

[PocketZeven]

Check out the Corwin Amendment, which was supported by Lincoln, and was drafted in an attempt to avoid civil war.

https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2013/02/18/the-other-13th-richard-albert
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment

Thanks for that really interesting piece of history. How different Lincoln's legacy could have been.

 

[Biggles]

I was driving through DC yesterday afternoon on 295, behind the Capital building, listening to CSpan as US Senators, Democrat & Republic, stood up & condemned Trump's attempt to usurp the role of the Congress to "control the purse". It's another disturbing thing about Donald Trump - he appears to have no understanding or respect for the constitutional nature of US government. I think he sees his role as the boss of a big company with the right to exercise sole executive power & the courts & Congress as annoying impediments to his ability to use this power. It also explains his apparent admiration for leaders like Putin, Kim Jong-un & Duterte.

Also ... coincidentally, immediately before turning on the radio, I had been listening to an audiobook on the life of Cicero, the great Roman statesman & orator. More than two thousand years ago he stood up in the Roman senate & railed against the dictatorial seizure of power by Julius Caesar in similar terms to the present day US senators speaking against Trump usurping Congress's power. Ultimately, it ended badly for Caesar, but the Roman Republic did not survive much beyond his death either.

Other similarities: Caesar was apparently vain about his appearance & very concerned about his thinning hair.
Dissimilarities? Julius Caesar was a highly intelligent, cultured man who actually HAD some of the "best words", didn't suffer from "bone spurs" & was one of the greatest military leaders in history.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Also ... coincidentally, immediately before turning on the radio, I had been listening to an audiobook on the life of Cicero, the great Roman statesman & orator. More than two thousand years ago he stood up in the Roman senate & railed against the dictatorial seizure of power by Julius Caesar in similar terms to the present day US senators speaking against Trump usurping Congress's power. Ultimately, it ended badly for Caesar, but the Roman Republic did not survive much beyond his death either.

Really Julius Caesar was part of the foundation of the new Empire and the creation of the first Augustine. The civil unrest that followed his office (partly consequentially) led to the individual state heads being disenfranchised and command of the states being centralised in one seat of power.

Trump would love that.

 

[mustafur]

Is it possible for there to be oversight over the Supreme Court or is breaking the Constitution just part of parcel now?