The American Constitution

[jeremyrh]

Would be interesting to see such an analysis. But then the gerrymandering may have something to do with it ...

One could still decide to give less populous states a relatively larger number of total votes, but at least within the state they would be closer to the population's preferences of the day. And as it goes with adding averages of subpopulations, they approach the total population average pretty well.

Cheers,
Bart

Bart - you have entirely missed the point, which is not to create a fair or representative system of voting, but to manipulate in whatever way is permitted by the courts to obtain a party advantage. You are existing in an old-fashioned world where the truth matters. It doesn't.

[OmerV]

Whatever Mitch did, and will do it again (adding more SCOTUS judges during Trump's lame duck year) is legal, based on the procedure established by the Constitution and Congress. You may not like it, you might think it is outright devious, but it is legal. Each party will use any procedural technique or loophole in order to achieve what they want. Filibuster is but one example. Ridiculous, but legal.

Remember, politics is not some lofty activity of "caring for the common good," whatever that might be, as the really naive would like to believe, but politics is a brutal contact sport of promoting interests of your constituents.

Yes, Slobodan, just as a change to popular voting would be legal. You wouldn’t like but...

Actually, the ability of the majority leader to hold a nomination is not written into the Constitution, as near as I can tell. It’s part of a Senate precedent established over time that gives him/her certain “rights” that are observed. Nevertheless, it is legal, or maybe has never been contested.
 

[Jeremy Roussak]

Like  "terrorist", the word "rant" serves mainly to define the prejudices of the speaker.

Since use of the word "terrorist" tells one precisely nothing about the prejudices of the user, I agree with you.

Jeremy

[jeremyrh]

Since use of the word "terrorist" tells one precisely nothing about the prejudices of the user, I agree with you.

Jeremy

Maybe read my post again. There is no rational way to parse it as you have done.

[D Fuller]

The US is a federation of states, not regions. If you want a popular vote, you’d first have to get rid of the federal structure, get rid of the states and the Senate.

I was called away while writing my previous response. I apologize for being so brusque. But...

There is absolutely nothing requiring that requires that “you’d first have to get rid of the federal structure, get rid of the states and the Senate” in order to reform the Electoral College. So, with that explanation, I stand by my assertion that the highlighted statement is nonsense. The Electoral College doesn’t even have to be eliminated to change its effect, as my own state of Maine has shown (a decision made under a Republican administration, BTW).

[Jeremy Roussak]

Maybe read my post again. There is no rational way to parse it as you have done.

I've re-read it. On the assumption that you mean "interpret", rather than "parse", kindly enlighten me as to the meaning you intended.

Jeremy

[jeremyrh]

I've re-read it. On the assumption that you mean "interpret", rather than "parse", kindly enlighten me as to the meaning you intended.

Jeremy

I intended precisely what I wrote. Simple enough.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Yes, Slobodan, just as a change to popular voting would be legal. You wouldn’t like but...

By all means, Omer, change it to popular voting by legal means. I might not like it, but I will respect it.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I intended precisely what I wrote. Simple enough.

So, in your world and in your interpretation, terrorists do not exist, they are just a figment of my imagination or prejudice?

[James Clark]

The Constitution is the legal law of the land.  Since it defines the process, it's perfectly legal and fair.  All 13 original states of the union agreed to the process when they signed on and created the United States 200 years ago.  In fact, they never would have signed on and created America if the process wasn't set up to provide a weighted-balance between smaller and larger states.  Since then, another 47 States (smaller and larger) have signed on to become part of the USA.  They agreed with the process as defined in the Constitution.  They accepted the way it was to be done.  You can;t argue now that you don;t like it.  Well, you could argue.  But you have to change the process by Constitutional amendment. Until then it's legal and fair and playing by the rules.

You've been channeling Mr. Obama again

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/57-states/

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

By all means, Omer, change it to popular voting by legal means. I might not like it, but I will respect it.

And why wouldn't you like it?

Cheers,
Bart

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... There is absolutely nothing requiring that requires that “you’d first have to get rid of the federal structure, get rid of the states and the Senate” in order to reform the Electoral College...

You are correct.

I was making a shortcut in the chain of possible events. Electoral college exists for a reason, and that reason is not just to prevent populist sentiments, but also to balance state rights. If you start dismantling state rights in one case (presidential elections), that is a slippery slope that might ultimately lead to reducing them to a symbolic level. As for getting rid of the Senate, one of our members, a fine gentleman, already posted a sentiment that:

... I think by 2050 (vaguely remembering this date), 70% of the Senators will represent 30% of the American populace.  This sounds more like a recipe for minority rule than majority....

So, it is not so inconceivable that once you start dismantling the federal structure for presidential elections, you might end up getting rid of the Senate in the end.

[faberryman]

So, it is not so inconceivable that once you start dismantling the federal structure for presidential elections, you might end up getting rid of the Senate in the end.

Or you could keep it in place since it represents a different branch of the government. The is nothing inherently inconsistent about a popularly elected executive and a proportionally elected legislature. No need to engage in reductio ad absurdum.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

And why wouldn't you like it?

Because the whole US would be ruled by 3-4 most populous states, like CA and NY.

[D Fuller]

Just a point about a state voting all of it's electors rather than splitting them.  Remember, the USA is a Federal system.  Each of the States are sovereign.  Like a country.  When Italy votes in the UN on an issue, it doesn't say, well our people's popular vote on this issue was 60% for and 40% against, and then split their vote.  No..  That's not what happens.  Italy vote 100% For or 100% against the particular issue as a country.  So a state similarly votes 100% for a Democrat or 100% for a Republican even though their state's popular is divided like Italy's.  OF course, each state electoral values is different.  That's based on the number of people in their state offset by two for the two senators.

Sovereign, yes, but not like a country.

Let’s remember how the US Constitution begins:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It does not begin with “We the several states, in order to form a federation.”  Yes states have sovereignty, but the Constitution never puts state sovereignty above the sovereignty of the nation as a whole; it is written to the benefit of the people of the Union as a whole. We fought a civil war over that.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Because the whole US would be ruled by 3-4 most populous states, like CA and NY.

Why? One can still use the same number of members of the electoral college per state. But within each state one can adopt a system more like a popular vote, like in Nebraska and Maine.

And BTW, the current weighting by state means that "the whole US is ruled" by the 48 least populous states. That may have been necessary to get them get on board and join a federation, but haven't the numbers of people changed in those states? Why should it be fixed in stone, and impossible to devise a slightly more representative representation ...?

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

Would be interesting to see such an analysis. But then the gerrymandering may have something to do with it ...

One could still decide to give less populous states a relatively larger number of total votes, but at least within the state they would be closer to the population's preferences of the day. And as it goes with adding averages of subpopulations, they approach the total population average pretty well.

Cheers,
Bart

Gerrymandering has no effect on Presidential and Senatorial elections because these are decided by the total popular vote within each state.  Election districts created by state legislatures, so-called Gerrymandering,  have no effect.  These districts only effect elections of Congressmen and state legislators representing state government.  So when a person votes, he will only see and can only select Congressmen and state legislators representing his election district.  President and senators would be on everyone's ballot.

[Alan Klein]

You've been channeling Mr. Obama again

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/57-states/

Yes, I had a brain fart too like Obama.     I noticed it right after I posted it.  I should have said there were 37 states that signed on after the initial 13, not 47.  Of course, we can't allow Mr. Trump any brain farts, although I believe he suffers from from some kind of language disorder.

[Alan Klein]

Sovereign, yes, but not like a country.

Let’s remember how the US Constitution begins:
It does not begin with “We the several states, in order to form a federation.”  Yes states have sovereignty, but the Constitution never puts state sovereignty above the sovereignty of the nation as a whole; it is written to the benefit of the people of the Union as a whole. We fought a civil war over that.

State sovereignty is separate from federal sovereignty. The constitution was written giving only certain enumerated powers to the national government.  Things such as making war, issuing money, regulating interstate commerce, making treaties with foreign nations.  In all other matters, the power was granted to the sovereign states.  For example, building construction codes, state and local police, criminal and civil law, zoning, speed limits, actually most of the rules and regulations we live by daily come from state and local jurisdiction.

State rights vs. federal authority have always been points of disagreement.  States sue the feds and vice versa.  The Supreme Court has often been called on to referee whether states have jurisdiction over an issue, or the national (federal) government does..  Probably the most visible of these today is legalizing marijuana.  There are federal laws against this.  Yet, a few states, claiming state rights, have made it legal in their states.  For now, the Feds are looking the other way and ignoring most enforcement.  But if a president decides to enforce the federal law  and stop states from selling pot, it will surely go to the Supreme Court.  They will have to decide which sovereign (the feds or the states) have authority over the issue. 

Here's a good article explaining states rights.

"In American political discourse, states' rights are political powers held for the state governments rather than the federal government according to the United States Constitution, reflecting especially the enumerated powers of Congress and the Tenth Amendment. The enumerated powers that are listed in the Constitution include exclusive federal powers, as well as concurrent powers that are shared with the states, and all of those powers are contrasted with the reserved powers—also called states' rights—that only the states possess.[1][2]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States%27_rights

[James Clark]

It does not begin with “We the several states, in order to form a federation.”  Yes states have sovereignty, but the Constitution never puts state sovereignty above the sovereignty of the nation as a whole; it is written to the benefit of the people of the Union as a whole. We fought a civil war over that.

We also tried it the other way once already.  It didn't work.  Curiously, we see the same nonsense today with people like Ammon Bundy and his ilk.