Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College

[Vepres]

Would you Democrats be OK with keeping the Electoral College if Gore would have won the EV and Bush would have won the PV? You know that many people considered this to be a serious possiblity right before the 2000 election.

Of course not. The Electoral College is an inherently undemocratic system, no matter who winds up winning it.

The executive branch isn't supposed to be fully Democratic, that's the congress' job. Just like a Prime Minister isn't directly elected.

[Vepres]

Would you Democrats be OK with keeping the Electoral College if Gore would have won the EV and Bush would have won the PV? You know that many people considered this to be a serious possiblity right before the 2000 election.

Of course not. The Electoral College is an inherently undemocratic system, no matter who winds up winning it.

The executive branch isn't supposed to be fully Democratic, that's the congress' job. Just like a Prime Minister isn't directly elected.

The Congress, of course, is also not Democratic. Look at the unequal representation in the Senate. (Not to mention gerrymandered districts.)

In addition to that....why shouldn't the executive branch be democratic....other than that being the "Founders'" intention?

I'm a strong believer in federalism. Which is why I support the electoral college and Senate (though not filibuster, you change my opinion on that )

Would you Democrats be OK with keeping the Electoral College if Gore would have won the EV and Bush would have won the PV? You know that many people considered this to be a serious possiblity right before the 2000 election.

Of course not. The Electoral College is an inherently undemocratic system, no matter who winds up winning it.

The executive branch isn't supposed to be fully Democratic, that's the congress' job. Just like a Prime Minister isn't directly elected.

Congress isn't democratic. Are you kidding? A person in North Dakota has 57 times more power than a person in California. And then you have the filibuster, which gives constituents of the minority 50% more power than constituents of the majority. And then you have D.C. which has zero representation period but is taxed like hell. Congress is the biggest joke in history.

DC should have representatives IMO.

Besides, this is a check on the majority, preventing the tyranny of the minority.

Without the Senate, the big states would get far more than their fair share of federal dollars, at least that would be the logical outcome.

[Vepres]

As it is now....the minority has more power than the majority, which for all practical purposes means that they are a majority.

It's just a matter of who gets more money.....and I would tend to believe that the greater number of people should have a greater amount of power, as opposed to the other way around.

Apparently the house of reps doesn't exist.

Edit: They do have more power. Honestly, the house is controlled by people from big states: Pelosi, Hoyer, Boehner, Waxman. That is why the Senate exists, to balance that.

[Vepres]

As it is now....the minority has more power than the majority, which for all practical purposes means that they are a majority.

It's just a matter of who gets more money.....and I would tend to believe that the greater number of people should have a greater amount of power, as opposed to the other way around.

Apparently the house of reps doesn't exist.

But it can't do anything by itself, it's worthless because everything has to be approved by a body that has very unequal representation.

Granted, the minority can't push its agenda through against the will of the majority.....but it's impossible for the majority to push anything through against the will of the minority.

It creates a deadlock that is extremely unfair, as people in small states have MUCH MUCH more power than people from moderately sized or large states.


As said, it's just a question of who actually holds power. Under the present system, it's clearly not the supposed "majority".

I haven't seen the Senate do anything that blatantly favored small states. (except for unethical things like buying votes.)

I feel like you're just mad about healthcare, but maybe I'm wrong.

[Vepres]

That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying very few people in a couple of small states are able to block anything they want.

Therefore, these people in small states hold very disproportionate power. Considering that the Senate must agree to everything (not to mention with 60 votes....and good that you've come to accept that shouldn't be necessary ), that means it doesn't mean much to control a majority in the House.....because it has to go through the Senate.

Why should my influence on healthcare be 10 times lower than a guy in Wyoming has?

Look, that's all fine in theory. Think about, though. The odds that all 50 Senators from small states would oppose something is absurd. Some are Dem, some are Rep, and some are split.

If the Senate was perfectly representative, the Republicans would have 45 seats, so it works both ways.

[Vepres]

That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying very few people in a couple of small states are able to block anything they want.

Therefore, these people in small states hold very disproportionate power. Considering that the Senate must agree to everything (not to mention with 60 votes....and good that you've come to accept that shouldn't be necessary ), that means it doesn't mean much to control a majority in the House.....because it has to go through the Senate.

Why should my influence on healthcare be 10 times lower than a guy in Wyoming has?

Look, that's all fine in theory. Think about, though. The odds that all 50 Senators from small states would oppose something is absurd. Some are Dem, some are Rep, and some are split.

If the Senate was perfectly representative, the Republicans would have 45 seats, so it works both ways.

Yeah, but it doesn't change the fact that a person in Wyoming has ten times the influence that I do.

Again, in theory.

Can you cite an issue where the small states generally blocked or significantly modified to their advantage? You can't say healthcare, because Senators from Texas, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Ohio, Arizona, and Tennessee opposed it.

Besides, doesn't each state government, having its own sovereignty on many issues, deserve equal representation?

[Vepres]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, practically as well. Unless you believe every state has equal population?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's true enough, but take the House of Representatives....where a public option was able to pass.
Sure, there were senators from big states that opposed healthcare, but if people in every state had roughly equal representation, then the partisan distribution would be different. Small states tend to have more conservatives. (Note that this assumes that the FPTP voting system is maintained. A proportional system of electing senators would actually benefit the Republicans currently....but that's only because they were destroyed in the last two elections.)

Of course, this isn't even mentioning Democrats that don't vote like Democrats simply because they represent states that Democrats shouldn't be really representing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

State governments don't deserve any representation. I don't care what the founders intended. State lines are artificial, why should I believe that precisely the lines that were drawn for states should determine the composition of the federal legislature? Why can't I divide New York into two parts and then demand that they get two senators each?

I only care about the people being represented equally.

The lines aren't arbitrary because over time each one developed its own economy. This happened with the original 13 colonies, and when new states were admitted, the lines were drawn to reflect that. 

As for small states, Vermont, Rhode Island, West Virginia (at the congressional level), New Mexico, and Hawaii are Democratic bastions, and North Dakota and Montana haven't been that harsh to Dems either.

Of course, it is fallacious to assume that direct representation of the people is always the best option. This system has worked for us, and it is a check on the majority, which is important. 

[Vepres]

You for some reason assume everything is political. It may be that Vermont elects socialists, and socialists are thus overrepresented in the Senate. But how on Earth does that change the fact that a vote in Vermont is far more valuable than a vote in California?

Let me put this in a different way, if I may. In the Kingdom of Prussia, the Abgeordnetenhaus was divided into three groups, with one-third of the seats being elected by that part of the population that paid one-third of the taxes. The richest thus had one-third of the seats, the middle one-third, and the lower class one-third. Do you have any objection to this?

Yes, obviously. It's a terrible analogy though. States are mini-countries, not sociological groupings. Each has a UNIQUE economy that has developed throughout its existence as a sovereign institution.

Considering that Californians control who governs their state, and their Reps in the hous, and that their state has a huge economy and population, that more than makes up for the Senate.

[Vepres]

Here's a question, Xahar. Why shouldn't states have equal representation?

[Vepres]

You for some reason assume everything is political. It may be that Vermont elects socialists, and socialists are thus overrepresented in the Senate. But how on Earth does that change the fact that a vote in Vermont is far more valuable than a vote in California?

Let me put this in a different way, if I may. In the Kingdom of Prussia, the Abgeordnetenhaus was divided into three groups, with one-third of the seats being elected by that part of the population that paid one-third of the taxes. The richest thus had one-third of the seats, the middle one-third, and the lower class one-third. Do you have any objection to this?

Yes, obviously. It's a terrible analogy though. States are mini-countries, not sociological groupings. Each has a UNIQUE economy that has developed throughout its existence as a sovereign institution.

I beg to differ. I have much more in common with a rich in New York than with a poor in Imperial County. Certainly, the rich have special interests. Don't those interests deserve to be represented? They have a unique influence on the economy as well.

How often do you interact with a rich person in New York? How about a poor in California? California's laws affect you, New York's do not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because states are nothing but groups of citizens. Citizens vote. States do not.
[/quote]

Citizens OF states vote, because citizens of states are different from those of another.

Is it fair that my state government has huge mandates imposed by a federal government in Washington? No. It'd be even more unfair if representatives from California, New York, Texas, and few other large states, imposed a policy on Colorado because it made them look good in their states, but harmed mine. States deserve representation for that reason, their policy making is influenced, sometimes programs are mandated, by the federal government, yet one pays taxes for their state, so as a taxpayer, one deserves to have an equal voice.

[Vepres]

A few things, Xahar.

First, I am by no means rich. Unless you consider a family of four with health insurance premiums, a mortgage, and only 40k after taxes, plus a number of other bills despite living conservatively rich.

Second, personally, I have significant interactions with "poors" on a nearly daily basis (my little segment of Boulder suburbia isn't very class segregated).

Now, my argument, put, well... better

A huge % of a state's budget is imposed by federal mandates. Now, that's not fair to my state government, nor its people. A program that benefits Californians may not benefit North Dakotans, but because of California's huge influence, they can force ND to spend that money (they do this despite being a blatant violation of states' rights), despite the fact that a Californian gives no money to ND, nor lives there. Thus, ND may have to raise taxes, but California doesn't care because it doesn't affect them.

As for the military, that does not make sense. Each state gives the same amount of money proportionately, and it is the President (who always wins the popular vote save once in modern history) who controls the military. Congress has very little influence over the military Xahar, and even if it did, the house would be a check on the Senate. It works both ways Xahar.

Now, I don't think it is fair that California, for instance, gives more the federal government than it receives, but that is due to corrupt Senators, and is their fault, not one of the system's design.

Your argument about the representation by class didn't make any sense. See, states are sovereign governments in a contract with their citizens, and on domestic issues they're more influential than the federal government (usually), that's why they deserve equal representation.

You're only arguments are, frankly, poor analogies and emotional arguments, Xahar.

[Vepres]

A few things, Xahar.

First, I am by no means rich. Unless you consider a family of four with health insurance premiums, a mortgage, and only 40k after taxes, plus a number of other bills despite living conservatively rich.

The fact that you have time to burn here would qualify you as a rich.

LOL I'm 16 dude, even a poor 16 year-old has time to burn

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fair enough, If you feel that way, then leave the federation, since it's clearly not working for Colorado.[/quote]

You don't understand that my arguments are philosophical and not political

Colorado actually gets it pretty fair, being right in the middle in terms of population. You're the one with the problems with the status quo, not me.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The same is true anywhere. A county government will do things that affect some areas of the county but not others.[/quote]

That is a poor analogy. States share all domestic sovereignty with the federal government, a county is not such a separate institution.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Indeed. Therefore, they should also have a proportionate say, yes?[/quote]

They do. It's called, the House and Presidency. The two can easily pressure the Senate to do what they want.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You seem not to understand that my objections here are philosophical, not political.[/quote]

It's suspect that you are from the largest state, that's all.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My arguments are emotional! Yes! I believe in democracy and equality. The idea that some people have more votes than others goes against that.
[/quote]

It is my belief that the Senate is an equalizer, not giving some people more influence. The rural areas would be just be ignored, face it.

Oh, and you believe it equality and democracy and stuff, but I recall you calling voters idiots on multiple occasions.

Here's a question, do you believe in federalism at all? If not, there is no point in us debating this.

[Vepres]

Xahar, perhaps you and I should just acknowledge that this is very very subjective (more so than many other issues) and that it is futile to debate it

[Vepres]

Xahar, perhaps you and I should just acknowledge that this is very very subjective (more so than many other issues) and that it is futile to debate it

You don't seem to understand the arguments against your notions

Cause otherwise I'd totally agree with you

The only argument is that everybody should be perfectly represented. This is a fallacy, as equal representation =/= the best governance. One house of congress and (for the most part) the Presidency are elected by an equal vote. It was Xahar himself who has said voters are idiots on multiple occasions.

They do. It's called, the House and Presidency. The two can easily pressure the Senate to do what they want.

You mean like on healthcare, or cap-and-trade?

That's the Democrats' fault, not the Senate. Republicans never had trouble.

[Vepres]

Xahar, perhaps you and I should just acknowledge that this is very very subjective (more so than many other issues) and that it is futile to debate it

You don't seem to understand the arguments against your notions

Cause otherwise I'd totally agree with you

The only argument is that everybody should be perfectly represented. This is a fallacy, as equal representation =/= the best governance. One house of congress and (for the most part) the Presidency are elected by an equal vote. It was Xahar himself who has said voters are idiots on multiple occasions.

They do. It's called, the House and Presidency. The two can easily pressure the Senate to do what they want.

You mean like on healthcare, or cap-and-trade?

That's the Democrats' fault, not the Senate. Republicans never had trouble.

It doesn't matter how equal representation is for the Presidency or the House of Representatives. The unequal Senate can block anything it pleases. What's so terribly difficult to understand about that?

I understand that, and I don't care.

The states deserve representation IMO.

[Vepres]

Then we have no reason to continue debating here.

I disagree that states deserve any representation whatsoever on principle.

Indeed, that is what I was trying to say earlier to Xahar.

[Vepres]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, Colorado gets it fair. You are thus admitting that the system is unfair.[/quote]

Maybe, maybe not

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The same is true anywhere. A county government will do things that affect some areas of the county but not others.[/quote]

That is a poor analogy. States share all domestic sovereignty with the federal government, a county is not such a separate institution.[/quote]

So, then, change "county" to "state".[/quote]

The thing is, the states established the federal government, they're approval is required for constitutional changes, counties were established by the states.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You seem not to understand that my objections here are philosophical, not political.[/quote]

It's suspect that you are from the largest state, that's all.[/quote]

I fail to see how that affects my argument.[/quote]

I'm just explaining why I thought you were arguing it from a political point of view originally.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My arguments are emotional! Yes! I believe in democracy and equality. The idea that some people have more votes than others goes against that.
[/quote]

It is my belief that the Senate is an equalizer, not giving some people more influence.[/quote]

I don't know how you can say these things with a straight face. In 1820, the British parliamentary constituency of Old Sarum had seven voters and returned two members to the Commons, and the constituency of Westminster had 9,280 voters and also returned two members to the Commons. Presumably this was also an equalizer and not giving some people more influence?[/quote]

No, because the commons are supposed to be like the US house.

This is how I see it. The states, for all domestic purposes, are mini-countries that have agreed to establish a federal government that has sovereignty over them on important issues that must be dealt with nationally. The Senate ensures that the big states don't walk over the small ones. California has 53 people earmarking for it, yet Utah only 3. I wish legislating didn't occur that way, but it is a reality.

The Senate also ensures there's consensus among many different groups of people on legislation. Now, I think that procedural filibuster is stupid, but still. Imagine all the stuff that would have passed under the Bush and under Obama without the Senate. Like it or not, it prevents radical change unless there is a clear consensus for radical change.

I admit the Senate is obstructionist at times, but I blame the politicians and parties for taking advantage of the institution.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's not true; rural areas are not ignored in the House, and many of its most powerful members come from rural areas. If it were true, than it would mean that rural areas were so insignificant that they deserved to be ignored.[/quote]

I do agree that they have their influence, but perhaps not enough IMO. After all, the speaker is from downtown San Francisco.

I was exaggerating, in hindsight.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It depends on the situation. Do I believe that Singapore ought to have a federalist system? Of course not. Do I believe that Russia should have a federalist government? Obviously. For America, federalism is preferable to a unitary state, given America's size. But federalism means that areas within the state decide local matters. I see no relation between federalism and the apportionment of representatives in a central legislature.[/quote]

To ensure the interests of the member states of the federation receive equal treatment. Now, in practice this doesn't always happen, but that's due to stupid political stuff like bribing Senators and such.

I would like to add that members from large states are usually very influential in the Senate. Your two Senators are. Look at Durbin, Schumer, Hutchinson, "Big John" Cornyn.

Generally, if two members have similar seniority it seems, at least to me, that the ones from big states have more influence.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Isn't debate the (theoretical) point of this forum?
[/quote]

Indeed. I've been enjoying this one. You're one of the more reasonable (if not moderate) and logical Democrats on the forum (though most posters here are indeed intelligent).

[Vepres]

I think one thing you're confusing is federalism and federal elections.

It's completely possible to have equal representation at federal level and still allocate significant power to the states. One thing doesn't really have much to do with the other.

I'm not. I realize they're not mutually exclusive. The equ representation contributes to the overall cohesiveness. The Senate brings a sense of equality and cohesion to the people of the various states. We already have significant region divides, NAFTA, for example, which the border stats like but industrial Midwest states don't. It legitimizes the federal government, and creates national unity.

[Vepres]

I think one thing you're confusing is federalism and federal elections.

It's completely possible to have equal representation at federal level and still allocate significant power to the states. One thing doesn't really have much to do with the other.

I'm not. I realize they're not mutually exclusive. The equ representation contributes to the overall cohesiveness. The Senate brings a sense of equality and cohesion to the people of the various states. We already have significant region divides, NAFTA, for example, which the border stats like but industrial Midwest states don't. It legitimizes the federal government, and creates national unity.

I don't feel unified, to be honest. In fact, it offends me greatly that a voter in North Dakota has the same representation in the Senate as I do.

First, you worded that poorly

Perhaps you're offended, but most Americans agree with the system. I have never met a person in real life opposed to the Senate. Personally, I really don't care that New Mexico gets the same representation as my state.

Besides, one of your Senators is the Majority whip, and as I said earlier, Senators from big states tend to be more influential (though seniority trumps that).

[Vepres]

With all due respect....the fact that most Americans approve of the system is hardly an argument in favor of said system

Nice subtle reference to one reform plan

[Vepres]

I read an interesting article awhile back about why this would never last. Basically, as soon as, say, Massachusetts' votes went to Sarah Palin even though Obama won the state, the whole thing will unravel quickly. Very few people support this on principle, most just do because of bitterness over 2000.

[Vepres]

Very few people support this on principle, most just do because of bitterness over 2000.

Very few people support the popular vote determining who wins the election? I doubt that. Now granted, this is just a way to achieve that goal.....but the principle behind the idea is the same.

But again, some latte liberal in Massachusetts will support this until his state's electoral votes go to Sarah Palin.

[Vepres]

So this has now been passed in 6 states and DC.  What do you guys think of the prospects of this (eventually) actually being adopted by enough states to reach 270 EV?  Is there a decent chance that the 2020 or 2024 election might be decided by the national popular vote?

This won't have credibility until a McCain state adopts it, IMO. Right now, I can't see that happening in the near future.