PDA

View Full Version : Liberals would re-write the Constitution, do away with Electoral College?




Patriot123
07-04-2011, 02:34 AM
I guess you can call this a rant. But I just don't get it. I mean, whenever I look at anything political I try to look at it from both angles. I understand that it's very, very important to understand both sides points of view, and to actually get the other side of the story. I don't think liberals are "mentally ill" in their opinions, as some Conservatives would, quite honestly, hatefully claim. But as a Ron Paul Conservative -- and as someone who just graduated high school, I can't believe what I just read on CNN. I read an editorial and watched a clip by Fareed Zakariah claiming how our Constitution is old and not relevant to the times we're in. That we should scrap Electoral College -- here's the part that had me fuming: because dividing the country into 50 states no longer serves a purpose as it after the Revolution. He had a poll that showed a majority of Americans also believed this.

Now I was fortunate enough to have an excellent history teacher in high school. Not a liberal, but a Conservative. And he taught us a lot -- a ton. I took AP American History with him, and AP Government and Politics. One of the things we learned is the sheer importance of Electoral College and the separation of powers between the federal government and the states. We read parts of the Federalist Papers. Generally, I have a LOT of respect for Fareed Zakaria. But for him to go out and publically bash the Electoral College, and states? The 10th Amendment? I mean, I'm sorry, but this is insanity! There is something seriously, SERIOUSLY wrong with our education system in this country. If we're producing adults that can't even elaborate on the point of Electoral College or what it even is, we have a serious problem. Having an opinion that there's something wrong with Electoral College? Fine -- different opinions are fine. But not even understanding the key points about it? Why it was created? What is wrong with this country?

Don Lapre
07-04-2011, 03:00 AM
There is something seriously, SERIOUSLY wrong with our education system in this country.

Captain Obvious. :D



I like your rant, and will submit that the phrase, "Liberals would re-write the Constitution" might accurately be stated, "Liberals have been re-writing the Constitution," because that's the realistic effect of what has been happening in our country.

It doesn't take a PHD in anything to realize that we wouldn't be 14 trillion dollars in debt if we were not butchering our Constitution all to hell.


But yeah, I have NO doubt that many/most liberals would actually take pen to paper and re-write the Constitution (to suit them) without batting an eye.


Btw, if you don't think liberals are mentall ill, and that it is hateful to say so, just give it a few years, weedhopper.
Pretty sure you'll come around to it.

:)

Patriot123
07-04-2011, 03:46 AM
Yeah, I guess. Maybe. Just maybe.

Here, watch the clip and article: http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/27/fareed-zakaria-and-jeffrey-toobin-on-updating-the-u-s-constitution/

And while I was re-searching for that one, look at what else I found: http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/07/02/do-july-4th-parades-turn-kids-into-republicans/?hpt=hp_c2 I think I've lost all respect for CNN =/

Don Lapre
07-04-2011, 04:14 AM
I saw the clip a couple of days ago - someone had thread up about it.

I said at the time that listening to what Toobin and Z said made me ill.

A few decades ago, folks spouting that kind of nonsense would have been recognized as nothing more than fringe wingnuts.

America is seriously down the shitter, sad to say.


I think there is a thread up also about that 4th of the July study.

Ironic thing is, many republicans are as far off on the Constitution as democrats are.

affa
07-04-2011, 04:24 AM
Plenty of conservatives want to rewrite it too. But really, many people are far too quick to label people conservatives and liberals. One of the first steps to freeing your mind is to do your best to not group people into simple labels. Different people want to criminalize different sorts of behavior, all the time -- from smoking to abortion to child care to the definition of marraige to running around with scissors. The media spends a lot of time dividing us into nice little labels, and too many people fall for it. We blame this one on them, that one on those, the other thing on whoever else.

As soon as some of you guys realize plenty of Ron Paul supporters are far left, the better -- because far left and far right touch, it's a big circle, with only some philosophical differences on the whys and wherefores, but generally having the same consensus (liberty). Many intelligent people are of various political beliefs. That doesn't make them wrong -- but in the past 15 years or so there's been a heavy push to villianize people we don't agree with. Red states, blue states, warmongers, fascists, libtards... these are the words of division we use to divide ourselves... with the medias blessing, of course.

As for getting rid of the Electoral college, one reason some people are for that is because some people believe we should have something more of a pure 'democracy' - that is, the will of the people (majority vote) should not be able to be overturned by the EC. It's not a 'stupid' thought, it's a valid discussion -- there is a reason both republics and democracies are forms of government -- and obviously different people will fall on different sides. Not liking the EC doesn't mean one is stupid, or hasn't given it thought -- heck, the very fact one is discussing the EC shows a certain level of political knowledge. Personally? I don't like the EC either, though for very different reasons than the reasons some Dems don't.

As for the constitution being outdated, it's inevitable some people will come to that conclusion regarding any document that is a couple hundred years old. This is especially true if the document puts forth rules one doesn't agree with -- and there is certainly no law saying we have to agree with everything the Constitution says. All documents can mean different things to different people.

One need only imagine a slightly different Constitution -- one written by people less liberty loving, perhaps -- to imagine being on the other side, trying to fight for something you believe in -- say, the right to bear arms. In that world, perhaps, you'd be the person argueing the Constitution is outdated. And even in that bizarro-world, there would be defenders of the written word. It just so happens (thankfully) that the Constitution was, for the most part, written with liberty in mind.

cindy25
07-04-2011, 04:54 AM
you don't have to worry; no way would the small states ever ratify any such amendment; and 13 states can block anything.

sailingaway
07-04-2011, 08:48 AM
Yeah, right now they are trying to get around it by voting in laws in the states that will automatically apportion their delegates by the popular vote as soon as some specific number (I forget which) of states adopts the same plan. California adopted it during Bush. It was presented as 'getting California appropriate clout to its representation. I voted against it, of course. I don't know how many other states have already adopted this.

That does not take ratification, nor an amendment.

YumYum
07-04-2011, 08:56 AM
I don't like the Electoral College. I think the presidency should be decided by a direct vote of the people of the U.S. Don't go by states; just a grand total of all the votes. The president works for all of the people of this country; a majority(or the popular vote) should decide who is president.

tangent4ronpaul
07-04-2011, 09:36 AM
I don't like the electoral college either - the system is really corrupt. Consider NV last election.

Also, consider this hypothetical set of all or nothing states:
A) R 49% D 51%
B) R 49% D 51%
C) R 49% D 51%
D) R 60% D 40%

Who won?
Who had more votes, assuming the same number of voters in each state?

-t

AGRP
07-04-2011, 10:32 AM
Electoral college ideally gives individual states power, which is what our founders intended.

Without it, our country would be ruled by New York, Chicago, and LA.

nobody's_hero
07-04-2011, 11:02 AM
The progressive movement has always been about direct democracy, and worse, they want it at the Federal level, which will render all checks and balances between federal, state, and local government obsolete.

The 17th Amendment (direct election of U.S. senators) was a big *** mistake, so I'm not jumping to do away with the electoral college at this point.

Rocket80
07-04-2011, 11:40 AM
I don't think I'll ever be able to grasp the logic of a voting system that allows the person with fewer votes to win. I don't see what geography has to do with any part of it - we are all voting for a person to represent us, all of our votes should count the exact same.

Under the electoral college a vote in Wyoming is worth about 4 times that of a vote in California. To me, that is in no way fair.

AJ Antimony
07-04-2011, 11:49 AM
Just goes to show you that people don't really understand government and the Constitution.

I think people just seem to have a ridiculously juvenile view that separation of powers, federalism, etc. were thrown in the Constitution just because it was cool at the time. People just refuse to entertain the possibility that federalism and small government are VERY important if they want to keep their freedoms.

Same story with the electoral college. It's true that liberals are only bashing the EC because their boy lost in 2000, but this still shows that they absolutely do not understand the EC's importance. We don't have an EC because it was cool in 1789.

Liberals just don't care about Constitutions and limits on government. They want the government to be able to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, and it can only be checked every couple years by voters. Hey, if I was a lazy, uneducated loser I'd vote for the people saying we should take away all the money from those scumbag rich people and flat out give it to people like me, for free.

Brian4Liberty
07-04-2011, 12:09 PM
Generally, I have a LOT of respect for Fareed Zakaria.

There's your first mistake. He's an establishment shill. He does play his role well, doesn't he?

Brian4Liberty
07-04-2011, 12:12 PM
My take is that they don't like the idea of a Constitution or a Supreme law at all:


Here's what they do believe in: they believe in a vast legal system, where all laws are open to debate and litigation. A system where any position can be defended or attacked on a "legal" basis. A system where the most powerful generally get their way, regardless of the letter or intent of the law. A system where anything can be justified. A system which enables power to reside with those with the most knowledge of the law, and how to use and manipulate it. A system where maximum employment is enjoyed for all those who desire to support, sustain and profit from the legal system.

They believe in no law at all, expertly disguised as a society fully enveloped in law.

The Constitution is the worst sort of law for them. It's far too clear, simple and supreme. The best law in their eyes is ambiguous, convoluted, complex and with no priorities at all.

Koz
07-04-2011, 12:18 PM
The progressive movement has always been about direct democracy, and worse, they want it at the Federal level, which will render all checks and balances between federal, state, and local government obsolete.

The 17th Amendment (direct election of U.S. senators) was a big *** mistake, so I'm not jumping to do away with the electoral college at this point.

Ding, ding ding.

demolama
07-04-2011, 12:53 PM
When they stopped adding members to the House per population size and shuffle a fixed amount of 435 from state to state every 10 years they effectively destroyed the electoral college since the electors are tied to the number of House members

http://www.thirty-thousand.org/

YumYum
07-04-2011, 01:03 PM
Electoral college ideally gives individual states power, which is what our founders intended.

Without it, our country would be ruled by New York, Chicago, and LA.

Actually, what gave our states power was that our U.S. Senators were decided upon by state legislators. But, as we know, that all changed in 1913 with the creation of the Fed.

YumYum
07-04-2011, 01:09 PM
The progressive movement has always been about direct democracy, and worse, they want it at the Federal level, which will render all checks and balances between federal, state, and local government obsolete.

The 17th Amendment (direct election of U.S. senators) was a big *** mistake, so I'm not jumping to do away with the electoral college at this point.

The beginning of big government began with Lincoln and the Republicans; not progressives. Progressivism began with Teddy Roosevelt, who was a Republican.

I agree, special interest groups now control our Senate, lock, stock and barrel, since the election of U.S. Senators comes from public vote. But the president works for the people. He answers to the people; not Congress, not the Supreme Court; not special interest. That is why the majority should decide who is the president.

nobody's_hero
07-04-2011, 03:45 PM
I agree, special interest groups now control our Senate, lock, stock and barrel, since the election of U.S. Senators comes from public vote. But the president works for the people. He answers to the people; not Congress, not the Supreme Court; not special interest. That is why the majority should decide who is the president.

You do not think the president answers to special interests? If direct election of U.S. senators accelerated the growth of special interests controlling the Senate, how are you certain that direct election of the president will not make things worse for the Oval Office?

As others have stated, there are good reasons why we have the electoral college. Please look up the original intent. I doubt the people of our nation have since evolved along the path of understanding 'liberty' and 'rights' to the point that we can kick the concept to the curb. If they weren't ready for direct democracy in 1913, they sure as hell ain't ready today.

nobody's_hero
07-04-2011, 03:52 PM
I don't think I'll ever be able to grasp the logic of a voting system that allows the person with fewer votes to win. I don't see what geography has to do with any part of it - we are all voting for a person to represent us, all of our votes should count the exact same.

Under the electoral college a vote in Wyoming is worth about 4 times that of a vote in California. To me, that is in no way fair.

Would it be fair if a vote in California were worth ten or more times as much as a vote in Wyoming? Because that's pretty much what will happen if we do away with the electoral college.

We won't have a voting system anymore.

It'll just be a game called, "California Wins!"

Bryan
07-04-2011, 04:04 PM
My $0.02.

The electoral college does not have to mean that "winner takes all" for that state, some states do separate out their vote count.

The electoral college gives each state the right to conduct the elections in any way they wish. With a pure popular vote you could be sure that every precinct would have to deal with federal standards, federal regulators, etc, etc, etc.

The electoral college insulates corruption into just one state- and can thus only affect that states electoral college votes. As an extreme example, with a popular vote, if a state with 10 million people ended up casting 20 million votes then the whole election will get wildly skewed. With an electoral college the skewing is limited to the outcome of just that one state.

mvymvy
07-12-2011, 11:54 AM
My $0.02.

The electoral college gives each state the right to conduct the elections in any way they wish. With a pure popular vote you could be sure that every precinct would have to deal with federal standards, federal regulators, etc, etc, etc.

The electoral college insulates corruption into just one state- and can thus only affect that states electoral college votes. As an extreme example, with a popular vote, if a state with 10 million people ended up casting 20 million votes then the whole election will get wildly skewed. With an electoral college the skewing is limited to the outcome of just that one state.

The Electoral College is the set of electors who vote for presidential candidates.

The U.S. Constitution specifically permits diversity of election laws among the states because it explicitly gives the states control over the conduct of presidential elections (article II) as well as congressional elections (article I). The Founding Fathers and the U.S. Constitution permits states to conduct elections in varied ways.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud. A very few people can change the national outcome by changing a small number of votes in one closely divided battleground state. With the current system all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state. The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against manipulation.

Senator Birch Bayh (D-Indiana) summed up the concerns about possible fraud in a nationwide popular election for President in a Senate speech by saying in 1979, "one of the things we can do to limit fraud is to limit the benefits to be gained by fraud. Under a direct popular vote system, one fraudulent vote wins one vote in the return. In the electoral college system, one fraudulent vote could mean 45 electoral votes, 28 electoral votes."

Hendrik Hertzberg wrote: "To steal the closest popular-vote election in American history, you'd have to steal more than a hundred thousand votes . . .To steal the closest electoral-vote election in American history, you'd have to steal around 500 votes, all in one state. . . .

For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be two hundred times closer than the 1960 election--and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.

Which, I ask you, is an easier mark for vote-stealers, the status quo or N.P.V.[National Popular Vote]? Which offers thieves a better shot at success for a smaller effort?"

Rocket80
07-12-2011, 03:52 PM
Would it be fair if a vote in California were worth ten or more times as much as a vote in Wyoming? Because that's pretty much what will happen if we do away with the electoral college.

No it wouldn't, but please elaborate on how that would happen without the electoral college. I feel like I'm missing some obvious link you are alluding to. What is fair is the CA vote counting the same as the WY vote, which does not happen now.

Without the EC the states would basically be irrelevant in a national election (fine with me), and each citizens individual vote would be counted equally - as a single vote. To call it a game where "California wins" makes no sense because it's not the states that are voting, it's just individuals. Why should where someone lives have any effect whatsoever on how much their vote counts?

California has 12% of the nations population but only 10% of the electoral college vote. Wyoming has 0.2% of the nations population and 0.6% of the electoral college vote.

nobody's_hero
07-12-2011, 05:07 PM
No it wouldn't, but please elaborate on how that would happen without the electoral college. I feel like I'm missing some obvious link you are alluding to. What is fair is the CA vote counting the same as the WY vote, which does not happen now.

Without the EC the states would basically be irrelevant in a national election (fine with me), and each citizens individual vote would be counted equally - as a single vote. To call it a game where "California wins" makes no sense because it's not the states that are voting, it's just individuals. Why should where someone lives have any effect whatsoever on how much their vote counts?

California has 12% of the nations population but only 10% of the electoral college vote. Wyoming has 0.2% of the nations population and 0.6% of the electoral college vote.

It goes back to the system of checks and balances our founders put in place. If you had a problem with the electoral college, then you might as well have a problem with the U.S. Senate.

California, a state with 12% of the nation's population, gets 2 U.S. Senators. Wyoming, a state with 0.2% of the nation's population, also gets 2 U.S. Senators.

In a voting system that has already devolved into little more than mob rule, I reaffirm my hesitation to forsake the framers' intent.

I do support ideas among the states to adjust the rules regarding electoral college vote distribution within their states, as that, IMO, falls under the 10th amendment and it is the right of the people who reside therein to decide as to how these votes are distributed. I believe Maine and Nebraska do not have 'winner take all' electoral voting systems, and it seems to work out fairly well.

YumYum
07-12-2011, 05:15 PM
Does any of it really matter when we know that we have to vote electronically and the votes cannot be counted? Once they did away with the old way this country was doomed. The electronic voting machines are made in Israel and serviced and monitored by an Israeli company. How would we know who voted for whom? This whole game is so rigged it's not even funny. Popular vote, electoral vote, it's meaningless. It's who the bankers want in office that decides who wins. At least America is getting a very valuable education from Ron Paul, even if the bankers won't put him in office.

Seraphim
07-12-2011, 05:31 PM
Unfortunately it's the popular vote (for President) that has destroyed the USA.

"Democracy is the road to socialism".

The very concept of looking to the "supreme leader" for solutions is counter productive and dangerous.

I'd rather vote in a local person, and have all the local/regional representitives pick the best of themselves to lead the country.

The popular vote deciding the Presidency is EXACTLY what is destroying the country.


I don't like the Electoral College. I think the presidency should be decided by a direct vote of the people of the U.S. Don't go by states; just a grand total of all the votes. The president works for all of the people of this country; a majority(or the popular vote) should decide who is president.

YumYum
07-12-2011, 05:33 PM
The popular vote deciding the Presidency is EXACTLY what is destroying the country.

But we don't have a popular vote.

White Bear Lake
07-12-2011, 06:43 PM
I think someone else nailed it. What screwed everything up was the cap on the number of house seats. I believe we should go back to increasing the number of house seats every census. Something like one representative for every 150K citizens should be good. Because EC votes are tied to the number of house seats, the EC votes would be much more accurately distributed amongst states this way. I personally like the idea of having 3000 representatives. It's much easier to have special interests control them. And it's also gives each community of interest better representation. There's like 30 seperate areas that each of their own interests and own political leanings in MN; it's impossible for 8 representatives to represent each of them. The way the current system is set up, blue collar mining towns up by Lake Superior are represented by a guy four hours south in a Twin Cities exurb.

Seraphim
07-12-2011, 07:02 PM
For Presidential elections? Yes there is...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008



But we don't have a popular vote.

Christopher A. Brown
07-12-2011, 09:08 PM
Plenty of conservatives want to rewrite it too. But really, many people are far too quick to label people conservatives and liberals. One of the first steps to freeing your mind is to do your best to not group people into simple labels. Different people want to criminalize different sorts of behavior, all the time -- from smoking to abortion to child care to the definition of marriage to running around with scissors. The media spends a lot of time dividing us into nice little labels, and too many people fall for it. We blame this one on them, that one on those, the other thing on whoever else.

That sounds like me talking. What has happened is that people have been conditioned from childhood by television, movies and popular social infusions, to adopt cognitive distortions for perceptual frameworks. My gift you fellow critical thinking American, to say the least. This is a list used in cognitive therapy.

1. All or nothing thinking: Things are placed in black or white categories.
2. Over generalization: Single event is viewed as continuous.
3. Mental filter: Details in life (positive or negative) are amplified in importance while opposite is rejected.
4. Minimizing: Perceiving one or opposite experiences (positive or negative) as absolute and maintaining singularity of belief to one or the other.
5. Mind reading: One absolutely concludes that others are reacting positively or negatively without investigating reality.
6. Fortune Telling: Based on previous 5 distortions, anticipation of negative or positive outcome of situations is established fact.
7. Catastrophizing: Exaggerated importance of self's failures and others successes.
8. Emotional reasoning: One feels as though emotional state IS reality of situation.
9. "Should" statements: Self imposed rules about behavior creating guilt at self inability to adhere and anger at others in their inability to conform to self's rules.
10. Labeling: Instead of understanding errors over generalization is applied.
11. Personalization: Thinking that the actions or statements of others are a reaction to you.
12. Entitlement: Believing that you deserve things you have not earned.


Different people want to criminalize different sorts of behavior, all the time

Yes, and I think that it is intentional. It helps to have criminals if you are going to run a prison state. Yes, as special interests in a free for all amendment frenzy, such efforts to criminalize what people might do freely harming none, would be a problem.

What if there was a way to unify citizens with fundaments of their human nature? It turns there is a method and part of it is already working in the Declaration of Independence through the concepts represented by the words, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It turns out that is the last 30% of an entire natural law, stoic law mix that has been called, "The Greater Meaning of Free Speech". From the practice of free speech an understanding can be created between people. That understanding can lead to; forgiveness, acceptance, tolerance, respect, trust, friendship and love, protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Where the "Greater Meaning of Free Speech" comes in is a non partisan agreement rooted in the founding contracts of the nation by both stoic law and natural law. It is simply at the root of being American in the most positive way.

Please, look at it from this perspective of the answer to this question to see the potential for unity.
What mother or father in the nation would pass or ignore the opportunity to assure their child would grow into would that holds high and honors the attributes of; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love, protecting their life, their liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

All Americans need to do is agree that mention of those human attribute principals must be a part of the nations constitution and the logical place is to revise the 1st Amendment.


As soon as some of you guys realize plenty of Ron Paul supporters are far left, the better -- because far left and far right touch, it's a big circle, with only some philosophical differences on the whys and wherefores, but generally having the same consensus (liberty). Many intelligent people are of various political beliefs. That doesn't make them wrong -- but in the past 15 years or so there's been a heavy push to villainies people we don't agree with. Red states, blue states, warmongers, fascists, libtards... these are the words of division we use to divide ourselves... with the medias blessing, of course.

Absolutely. Again, the social trend of villianization was unnaturally induced through things like this,

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/15/sunstein

Why should the infiltrators work hard to try and sell the cognitive distortions if they can get the people they want to control to villainies each other?


As for getting rid of the Electoral college, one reason some people are for that is because some people believe we should have something more of a pure 'democracy' - that is, the will of the people (majority vote) should not be able to be overturned by the EC. It's not a 'stupid' thought, it's a valid discussion -- there is a reason both republics and democracies are forms of government -- and obviously different people will fall on different sides. Not liking the EC doesn't mean one is stupid, or hasn't given it thought -- heck, the very fact one is discussing the EC shows a certain level of political knowledge. Personally? I don't like the EC either, though for very different reasons than the reasons some Dems don't.

After the "Greater Meaning of free Speech" is restored, and our society has healed from its deprivation, we can probably do away with the EC with no problem. Education from free speech that is respected for its purposes conservatively speaking, will make it possible


As for the constitution being outdated, it's inevitable some people will come to that conclusion regarding any document that is a couple hundred years old. This is especially true if the document puts forth rules one doesn't agree with -- and there is certainly no law saying we have to agree with everything the Constitution says. All documents can mean different things to different people.

Since we can amend through an Article V, and recover the "Greater Meaning of free Speech", we can properly update the constitution eventually. Without the "Greater Meaning of free Speech" we will lose it all the way.


One need only imagine a slightly different Constitution -- one written by people less liberty loving, perhaps -- to imagine being on the other side, trying to fight for something you believe in -- say, the right to bear arms. In that world, perhaps, you'd be the person arguing the Constitution is outdated. And even in that bizarro-world, there would be defenders of the written word. It just so happens (thankfully) that the Constitution was, for the most part, written with liberty in mind.

Yes, liberty and a robust capacity to adapt through free speech, but we've lost our ability to appreciate each others opinions enough to exercise them and make them more functional, so we suffer.

affa, great post BTW!