USA a false democracy?

The EC was put in to balance the power of the states in electing the President. They did not even envision the people voting for the President and therefore did not include it in the Constitution. The states elect the President. And yes the northern states did want slaves counted as people while the Southern states did.

And the fact remains your state legislature could decide it would choose the electors and for whom they would vote and could not stop it other than vote them out next time.

 

Not when it comes to electing the President and Vice President and the will is only through their state representatives in this Republic, and don't try to predict what I will say else you might look.................but it you want to point out where in the Constitution that would be I'd be happy to read it, I have already cited the clause which applies here and you are ignoring it.

 

Bullshit, the SCOTUS only recently said that State laws making Faithless Electors illegal were not unconstitutional

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiaf...20,elector's pledge in presidential elections.

The only reason for that is that the original Electors would have found it deadly insulting that anyone would even suggest they would defy the will of the people they were supposed to be acting for

 

They were not, however, apparently anything even close to some present-day Trump-supporting Republicans

 

USA a false democracy?

~ It certainly is headed in that direction. Can/will the people stop it ?

 

Please connect the dots between a popular vote for President and the Presidency becoming a "king-like office."

Your opinion is noted. The alleged wisdom about the Presidency was the product of a political compromise to get the Constitution adopted by smaller states.

What does any of this have to do with electing the President by popular vote?

What makes you think wishing to have a popular election is synonymous with looking for the second coming of the Orange Oaf (Trump)?

There is some evidence term limits would give political parties even more control, not less.

Better to have 'tyranny of the small states?'

 

A close look at the word democracy reveals the root of the problem Republicans have with the concept. It's right there as big as day democracy= democrat. Given that revelation how could anyone but a ******* think that democracy is a good thing?

 

Yes, and instead of the Democratic Party, it's "Dems" and "Democrat Party."

 

So I agree with you that I did not do a good job of connecting the dots. Let me see if I can do that.

Looking back at what I wrote, I'll begin by again saying the Congress should be the center of our politics - the place that actually steers the country. The President's job is to execute the will of Congress - to preside over the bureaucracies that execute the will of Congress. The only time a president really has a great deal of impact on the fate of the country is in times of war when, as CIC of the military, we need him to win a war (the War of 1812, the Civil War and WW2 are examples of that). The President may represent us to other world leaders. The President may also work to find compromise and consensus in Congress. And finally, under the EC system, the President may look towards the states that he lost and ask himself how he may earn their vote next time. It matters to the President whether the state is large or small.

I also pointed out that our modern day Congress is failing us. Rather than fearlessly taking a stand on things, rather than engaging in bruising political battles, rather than risking their reelection, Congress avoids responsibility, equivocates, panders, hides, lies to us, knows who their big donors are and what they want but doesn't know what's in a bill they're voting on, and sells itself to the highest bidder. They place career above everything. And a good way to hide is to walk in lock-step with the Party bosses. Sadly, when you look at how Congress votes, you realize that a trained monkey could do the same thing - the red button gets a treat, the blue button gets a slap on the nose, or vice versa.

And so, what has evolved is an ever-increasing leadership role of the President. The public rightfully wants leadership, and the Congress is happy to pass what should be their leadership off to the President because their is no political risk in that. If things go well, they pat themselves on the back. If things don't go well, it's the President's fault because, after all, he's the President. Congress acts as follows: "If the President is from my party, I will support what he wants; if he is not from my party, I will not support what he wants." This is backwards - upside down.

I see this as a perversion of the original intent. The President, of course, is allowed his opinions and his pulpit, but the President is supposed to execute the will of Congress, not the opposite.

So with all of that as a backdrop, how does that relate to a popular vote vs the EC system? Time to tie it together. Why do I think going to a popular vote belies a desire for a "king-like" office?

Because if we wish to end a system that gives respect to all the states, big and small, then we must amend the Constitution. And if we wish to amend the Constitution, it belies the fact that this change is thought to be crucially important. And if we think that it is crucially important that a President be elected by popular vote only, then it tells me that we have forgotten what the role of the President was intended to be. Instead, we want a President who is only responsible to the majority, and the minority be damned. And it is an acknowledgement that we have accepted this transition of power that has happened over time from the Congress - our representatives - to the Executive. If it is soooo crucially important that the President be elected by a simple majority, it exposes our mindset - that we are slipping from wanting to have a presidency whose job it is to execute the will of Congress - to more of a "Dear Leader" system of government where it becomes the role of Congress to execute the President's wishes.

In case I still haven't been clear, the tie-in is what it tells us about ourselves. It belies a belief that the President's power has increased so much that, if we think this change benefits our side, it must be done, for it is the President who steers the country. It belies a deep disrespect for our fellow Americans who think differently from us. And it belies an underlying, almost unconscious acknowledgement that the Congress will not steer the country's present and future as it was intended to; instead, we want a singular leader - the President - to do that. We want a President who is completely unaccountable to the minority and completely unaccountable to geographical areas and demographics that didn't support him.

The tie-in is that if we want a President elected purely by a popular vote, then we are choosing to take the steering wheel away from the consensus of our elected representatives and giving it to one person - the President who possesses the power (or tyranny) of the majority vote. We are acknowledging and accepting this transition. We are asking for a more powerful and less accountable presidency.

I think this is stunningly short-sighted, potentially very dangerous, and I also believe it would add to, not diminish, our partisan divide and dysfunction. It is hard to imagine our partisan divide and dysfunction becoming worse than it is already, but I think it could get worse and lead to serious trouble if we are unwise.

I deeply believe we are far better off with a strong, robust Congress and a relatively weak (for lack of a better word) or "limited power" Presidency, just as it was designed to be.

If we want a better Congress we will need term limits. Otherwise, they will not change. If we had term limits - like 6 years - members of Congress would be people who wanted to do something good for their constituents and for their country, rather than the feckless, timid, selfish body that they are.
The narrative that we need experienced members of Congress is utterly false. And even if there are some advantages to experience, they are outweighed by the advantages of having better members with higher motives.

OK, LangleyMan, that is my good faith attempt to better explain. Of course, you need not agree with me. I expect disagreement. What's important to me is not agreement. What's important to me is understanding my point of view - not agreeing - understanding. That's what I was shooting for.

Seth

 

The Founding Fathers were fearful of a strong Executive, so they recognized a Presidential system could threaten democracy. They provided the legislature an effective check on the President, even including an option to remove him (including "her" now).

Welcome to political parties in a system not designed for it. The weakness of the legislature in terms of getting anything done is countered by developing a stronger Executive.

We designed a legislative system where it's difficult to legislate. The rats are running in the maze we created, and generations have run as expected.

It's more like an inevitable consequence than a perversion, nor surprising the President would be the strongest person in his (or her) political party.

Political parties have elevated the importance of the Executive. It doesn't matter what the Founding Fathers intended, but instead the nature of the kluge they created.

Obviously, it isn't even though it may be preferable. Better the President has to answer to everyone equally than to some more than others.

Part of the solution to our problem is, I think, having permanent party leaders who are the party's candidate for President.

Wanting my vote for President to count as much as the vote of a person in Wyoming says only that I want equality. The Presidency is strong because the legislature is weak.

While I tend to agree, I still think the President should elected by popular vote.

The Party becomes even more important with term limits.

I agree the Executive is too strong, but the fix is getting rid of the Senate so there is an easier time passing legislation.

 

Thank you for treating my remarks and explanation with respect, if not total agreement. I deleted all but this one thing because I would like to address it.

I agree that if there was no Senate it would be easier to pass legislation. No doubt.

But if legislation must pass two bodies instead of only one, I think that validates the legislation. So I don't think I could get behind getting rid of the Senate, but ...

But what I really want to say is that I think our country erred when it passed the 17th Amendment which provided for the election of Senators by popular vote. Prior to that amendment, Senators were appointed by their states' legislatures. The electorate was one step away by electing their state legislatures.

If we repealed the 17th and went back to the way it was, we would do two very important things.

(1) We would eliminate the need for Senators to seek out campaign cash.
(2) We would make Senators accountable to the wishes of their state only.

So, for example, if I'm a Senator from Oregon, and you are a lobbyist who favors a tax exemption for a corporation on the east coast somewhere, and you want me to vote for it, you may contact me or my staff and promise a nice campaign contribution if I support what you want, even though it has nothing to do with Oregon.

But if I am only accountable to my state legislature, that lobbyist has no way to bribe me with a campaign contribution because I don't need campaign contributions. Instead, what I do is consult my state legislature, and I ask them how I should vote on the tax exemption. As another example ...

What if I'm a Democratic Senator from Oregon who was appointed by a Democratically controlled state legislature, and my Democratic POTUS wants a vote authorizing a war - maybe an Iraq-style regime change war that isn't really necessary for our survival? What I do is I consult my state legislature. I feel no political imperative to support my Democratic president. I vote as my people from my state want me to vote, and that may not necessarily be the way the President wants me to vote. But I am not accountable to the President, and I am not accountable to the Democratic Party. I am only accountable to the people of my state.

I spoke of term limits in my earlier writing to you. But when I think of term limits, I am really only thinking of term limits for members of the House because I want Senators elected by their state legislatures again.

We would do a lot to bringing action and integrity to our Congress if we did those two things - term limits on the House, repeal the 17th Amendment.

Seth

 

I sympathize with that. I live in Oregon. I understand that my vote for President will never count unless I vote for a Democrat.

I still prefer the EC system for all the reasons I said before, but I understand and sympathize with that.

Seth

 

Yes, and we can give smaller states proportionally more House seats than their population warrants. Our constitutionally federalized northern neighbor, Canada, does exactly that. Prince Edward Island has four MPs for just 157,000 people while British Columbia has 42 MPs for 5.1m people.

If we had four chambers instead of two, the legislation would be even more validated. I think we have to do something to make the legislative branch more agile.

The party controlling the state appointing the Senator collects the cash.

The most party-independent Senators and Representatives are those with many years of experience. They have a following independent of party.

 

I have been saying, with little agreement, that with our winner-take-all system in most states, when the winner gets 51% of the votes and the loser gets 49% of the votes, and ALL electors go with the winner (the definition of winner-take-all), that means 49% of the voters in that state were disenfranchised and their vote was "changed" and given to the other candidate.

 

I don't know what "reasons you said before", but they probably center around claims of rural states not being represented "fairly" in a popular vote. But let's also recognize that by counting EC vote totals from individual states, once the total exceeds 50% all other states votes are essentially "thrown out" because they won't make any difference. With the popular vote that wouldn't happen. In all probability the 50% threshold for a popular vote would include more states.

I also have arguments against the usual objections to ending the EC and "unfairness" but I'll withhold them for now.

 

And those reasons are mostly irrelevant now with modern society obviating them.

Which illustrates the corruptibility of this EC system. AND it illustrates that this was never intended to be a "representative democratic republic".

And now, just to piss you off, we have the National Interstate Popular Vote Compact, and we're 72% of the way to a popular vote because of it.

 

BS. With the EC, if you vote for the loser, your vote is essentially converted to a vote for the winner. HTF do you like that kind of disenfranchisement?

I live in Oregon where we have had only mail-in voting for 22 years. There are NO POLLING STATIONS. And our voting has been GREAT with no more fraud or errors than any other system. It's all a question of the intent of the state's election commission and their willingness to ensure a fair and transparent vote. So your objection to "anyone can mail in as many ballots as they want to with zero safeguards" is your own invented fantasy.

 

With a national vote without the EC, there is no reason to ever conduct the presidential election other than in California and New York since either of those states can claim as many votes for Democrats as they want to - making voting irrelevant everywhere in the USA.

The realities of Portland show why voting by mail is a total failure and the anti-thesis of democracy.

 

Let me show you how ridiculous that is.

Suppose the combined NY-California vote is 51% for a Democrat and 49% for a Republican. Do you really think no other state's vote will matter? How about a 60%/40% split?

It appears that your idea of "either of those states can claim as many votes for Democrats as they want to" is either based on a belief there is rampant fraud, or that the EC winner-take-all rules remain in place. In either case it's BS.

Now you can explain for me exactly how "the realities of Portland show why voting by mail is a total failure and the anti-thesis of democracy" in your fantasy.

 

Suppose the combined vote for NY - California is 79 million votes for the Democrat and 1 million votes for the Republican. Since there is no way to actually contest voter fraud other than to the party committing the fraud, the election has been decided nationwide by such fraud. With the EC, a voter fraud organization in one state can only alter that one state. Otherwise it would affect the entire election nationwide - but you know that and are just trying to divert from that.

Not for one second do I believe a majority of Oregonians support legalizing meth and heroine nor allowing and not prosecuting looting, theft, arson and violent anarchy. But it doesn't matter what Oregonians think or how they vote. It only matters what the Democratic election officials in Oregon's Democratic election offices want. The ballots run thru are whichever and only which ballots they want to run thru - whether mailed in, fraudulently created or thrown away. Nothing prevents election fraud in Oregon.

 

They haven't changed at all and the NIPV faces it's own problems in it's attempt to do an end run around the constitution and the fundamental principles upon which we were founded like enforceability and congressional approval of a compact between states and getting the remaining states to sign on to it.

 

I see that not only do you know what's going on in Oregon, but you don't know what's going on with the EC either.

 

LOL!!! Riiiiiiiight. We still have only the pony express for communication between states and maybe some day we will have air travel making it easier and faster to travel state-to-state. LOL!!!!

And congressional approval of the NIPV isn't needed and won't be relevant. States' rights, ya know?

 

The United States is a Federal Republic, not a democracy.

 

Not anymore.