Representative Governments

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Representative Governments

Post by Walker »

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Is there any viable argument for the POTUS electoral college?
Because: It’s about everyone having a voice in government, not just special interests such as mobs and corporations.

Here’s the argument, in reality:

Red is Trump.
Blue is Clinton.
http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/ ... _map_1.jpg
prothero
Posts: 92
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 4:40 am

Re: Representative Governments

Post by prothero »

Impenitent wrote:monkeys in charge of public education

you don't like the EC, change the Constitution

-Imp
It will likely never get changed. It would require an amendment to the constitution approved by three fourths of the states. Both the EC and the Senate (where each state has equal representation regardless of size or population) were compromises at the constitutional convention. The less populous states would never have joined the union if representation in congress and the election of the president were solely by popular vote. If one could be elected president just by winning the more populous states the smaller states would never get any attention in the presidential race and little attention in the legislature.

The founders were not much in favor of "universal suffrage" or of the kind of "very powerful, extensive" central federal government we now have. States rights were a major focus of the convention and a federal government of limited powers, size and extent was what was envisioned. In fact the founders were quite concerned about the tendency of government to grow and to enlarge its own powers left unchecked and thus the division of powers among the three major branches of government and the emphasis on a free press and right of assembly (the fourth estate). Voting rights were decided by states and in many states only those with "a stake in society" (largely land owners and business owners) were given the vote. Of course slavery also featured prominently in the constitution and that has been changed by amendment but changes in the EC or Senate seem less likely (and probably on reflection not desirable).

A lot of traditional republican messaging is about smaller, more efficient, limited central government and a return of decision making and power to the local or state level. Of course with Trump traditional republican messaging has been turned on its head.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Representative Governments

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

Impenitent wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:You can talk reform until you are blue in the face, but with the monkeys in control of the zoo, you have no chance.

Is there any viable argument for the POTUS electoral college?
I thought it was to separate the mob from the direct appointment by offering the 'electors' the right to choose. It would appear to me that this election was exactly the reason the system was devised; to give honourable and decent persons the right to choose otherwise when a dishonourable candidate was elected by the popular vote.
In practice the electoral college have followed the vote in over 99% of the cases. This means that Trump won even though he got fewer votes.
monkeys in charge of public education

you don't like the EC, change the Constitution

-Imp
I asked if anyone had an argument for it, (the EC).
Is there anyone willing to defend it against a one person one vote alternative.
Impenitent
Posts: 4331
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Representative Governments

Post by Impenitent »

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Impenitent wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:You can talk reform until you are blue in the face, but with the monkeys in control of the zoo, you have no chance.

Is there any viable argument for the POTUS electoral college?
I thought it was to separate the mob from the direct appointment by offering the 'electors' the right to choose. It would appear to me that this election was exactly the reason the system was devised; to give honourable and decent persons the right to choose otherwise when a dishonourable candidate was elected by the popular vote.
In practice the electoral college have followed the vote in over 99% of the cases. This means that Trump won even though he got fewer votes.
monkeys in charge of public education

you don't like the EC, change the Constitution

-Imp
I asked if anyone had an argument for it, (the EC).
Is there anyone willing to defend it against a one person one vote alternative.
51% make slaves of the 49%... that's democracy

-Imp
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Representative Governments

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

Impenitent wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Impenitent wrote:
monkeys in charge of public education

you don't like the EC, change the Constitution

-Imp
I asked if anyone had an argument for it, (the EC).
Is there anyone willing to defend it against a one person one vote alternative.
51% make slaves of the 49%... that's democracy

-Imp
You got that backwards. Hilary got more votes than Trump.
Impenitent
Posts: 4331
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Representative Governments

Post by Impenitent »

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Impenitent wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
I asked if anyone had an argument for it, (the EC).
Is there anyone willing to defend it against a one person one vote alternative.
51% make slaves of the 49%... that's democracy

-Imp
You got that backwards. Hilary got more votes than Trump.
the US isn't a democracy

-Imp
prothero
Posts: 92
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 4:40 am

Re: Representative Governments

Post by prothero »

Hobbes' Choice wrote: I asked if anyone had an argument for it, (the EC).
Is there anyone willing to defend it against a one person one vote alternative.
You have been given two arguments for it, you just don't seem to like them or care to address them, the historical reasoning about states rights, states representation and the feelings of states with smaller populations. Would you like to do away with the Senate also, some Senators represent 10 million people while others represent fewer than 250,000?
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Representative Governments

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

prothero wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote: I asked if anyone had an argument for it, (the EC).
Is there anyone willing to defend it against a one person one vote alternative.
You have been given two arguments for it, you just don't seem to like them or care to address them, the historical reasoning about states rights, states representation and the feelings of states with smaller populations. Would you like to do away with the Senate also, some Senators represent 10 million people while others represent fewer than 250,000?
Gustav linking a conservative website is not an argument, certainly not two arguments. I can't have a conversation with a inanimate web page.

For the Potas, I see no reason that one man one vote should not be applied; the president is a federal office to represent the whole people, the "electors" for POTAS, are in name only and represent nothing. The numerical similarity to representation is incidental. The US already has a ridiculously skewed representation for it's states, in both the HoR and the Senate. I see no good argument for that either.
What makes you think I want to "do away with" any branches of government. I simply think that representation ought to be proportionate. The states are arbitrary' change the boundaries. (Other) civilized countries do it all the time.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 682
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:25 pm

Re: Representative Governments

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

The vision behind the US government and the Constitution was a radical departure in its day. It is for that reason a radical document. But now, to preserve a link to that style of thinking or the principles behind that thinking is no longer considered radical or 'progressive'. And yet it could be argued that to take a principled position against emotional progressivism is in itself a form of radicalism.

For this reason (IMO) the arguments that favor the Constitution as the guiding conceptual and legal document are by their very nature 'conservative'. To conserve the sense of the thing. To conserve the mental and intellectual structure which allows for a relationship to it. Without that structure there can be no relationship to the document as a conceptual whole.

What I have found is that when radical reinterpretations are brought to bear against constitutional originalism, they do so in accord with radical principles and ideals which are, by their very nature, incompatible with the document itself and the mindset that created it. Essentially, progressive-radicalism desires another document, another Constitutional Convention.

Obviously, the culture of the United States is in a divided state. And the struggle over interpretation of the Constitution, and certainly the compositions of the courts, is a battleground. It would appear that superficially as well as potentially profoundly that the polity is opting for a 'return to conservative principles'. (I think this is both true and untrue but it requires explanation).

So, some part of this can shed light on the conflicts that we notice around us. How to define exactly that (or those) conflict(s)? What exactly is the conflict between the 'conservative' faction (so-called) and the 'progressive faction' (so-called)? If you can answer that question it means that you can really see and understand what is at stake and why. It means you will have taken the time to understand the philosophy behind each vision.

It is true that one cannot argue against a webpage. But one can take a moment to read a strong argument which describes what will happen if the EC is done away with and then of course why it was established in the first place. Abandoning it would come about through the advocacy of a radical group and would have, as is indicated, rather dramatic consequences. And perhaps those radical consequences would be desired. Or if chaos resulted or unintended consequences it might be seen as a mistake.

If Mr Hobbes were actually interested in the topic, and not merely in inciting bickering, he would already have taken the conservative argument into consideration. He'd already know it. And he would offer a cogent counter-argument.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Representative Governments

Post by Walker »

That sounds accurate.

With a popular vote, two or three miscounted votes per precinct would be enough to sway the popular vote of a close national election, corrupting the election if all the miscounts were for the same candidate. Could that happen?

Speculation about no EC:

- No need for precincts.
- Everyone votes with a smart phone.
- The government issues a smart phone to everyone who registers to vote.
- Smart phone corporations and their enthusiastic, connected supporters transform into ludicrous rich.
- You must retrieve the phone in person, but due to Democratic pressure, no ID is required to vote or claim your phone.
- The smart phone app records your vote.
- Your next vote is subsequently influenced by special interests at a new level of personal.

What could go wrong?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 682
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:25 pm

Re: Representative Governments

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

California accounts for HRC''s popular vote win. Consider then the scenario explored in the 'conservative' article I posted.

See this article.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Representative Governments

Post by Greta »

A representative government sounds like a good idea to me. Maybe one day we will try it?
prothero
Posts: 92
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 4:40 am

Re: Representative Governments

Post by prothero »

Greta wrote:A representative government sounds like a good idea to me. Maybe one day we will try it?
Representative of whom or what? The State of Montana has two senators and one representative. The population of Montana is roughly one million people. The State of California has roughly 37 million people represented by two senators and 53 representatives in the U.S. House. You can do the math about how many people each of these elected officials represent.

The U.S. is not a direct or even an indirect democracy (in the technical sense). It is a representative republic (indirect representation). It is also a Union of the States (United States) and the individual states would never have formed a union if power in the federal government had been based on population alone. Nor does any alteration of the relative balancing of the EC or representation in the Congress seem likely, It requires a constitutional amendment, two thirds of each house,ratification by three quarters of the states (how do think the less populous states will vote) and signature of the president (several of whom lost the popular vote and only became president via the EC). In fact equal representation of each state in the U.S. Senate is protected by specific clauses of the U.S. Constitution and is even harder to change or amend.

Neither universal suffrage, nor one man, one vote were popular conceptions among the Founders of the U.S. and perhaps this last election indicates the validity of some of their reasoning. One man One vote as a principle for state legislatures and the U.S. house of representatives was only established by U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1964 Reynolds vs. Sims. prior to that time the population in U.S. congressional districts often varied widely and state legislatures often were based on counties not on population.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Representative Governments

Post by Greta »

prothero wrote:
Greta wrote:A representative government sounds like a good idea to me. Maybe one day we will try it?
Representative of whom or what?
Representative of people's interests rather than those of institutions.
Post Reply