The Electoral College and the Senate both give more political power to small states than those states earn through the size of their populations. Why is the government in the business of redistributing representation and political power?
Are the Electoral College and Senate political welfare for small states?
- Thread starter 2facedboonefan
- Start date
Ahhh.. The framers wanted it that way. It helps protect the small states from being overridden in their interests. A minority protection clause so to speak. As a big lib you should love this
Because we don't want California and New York dictating everything.
At least us Floridians would have a voice. Iowans? Not so much.
At least us Floridians would have a voice. Iowans? Not so much.
Because the framers of the constitution had no idea the states would allow the federal government to become so powerful it would seem like the federal government is in the business of redistributing representation and political power.
The question you should ask is why the states have given away their power.
The question you should ask is why the states have given away their power.
The answer can be found by doing some research on the Articles of Confederation.
Hopefully "we the people" will never ask Florida any questions on election protocol.....or how to maintain an accurate voter's registration list.
In a modern world, however, is it still necessary to look to an 18th century concept as a model? The Framers were brilliant for their time, of course, but could we start from scratch and design a better constitution today based on the original? I bet we could.
Apparently, Iowa doesn't demand anything at all. Walk up, register without any documentation whatsoever (not even proof you're at the right caucus-place based on residence), and caucus.
REALLY?
I would posit that a flawed list is better than no list.
To clarify, I'm playing devil's advocate. Though I think we could design a better Constitution today, I actually support equal representation in the Senate. The Electoral College could use a little work though.
It's a caucus, not an election run by the County.Apparently, Iowa doesn't demand anything at all. Walk up, register without any documentation whatsoever (not even proof you're at the right caucus-place based on residence), and caucus.
REALLY?
I would posit that a flawed list is better than no list.
The framers were brilliant in any time of history. They understood human nature and they set up a system meant to protect people from the inevitable overreach by the government - especially the federal/centralized government. Unfortunately too many people today are ignorant of the brilliant nature of our constitution and are willing to give it away. Mostly because our populace is weak-minded and without understanding of just how valuable individual liberty truly is.
So no - the current legislators couldn't better. I'd like to know what evidence leads you to believe they could.
In a sense, if it just went by popular vote you could literally just campaign in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, St. Louis, etc... and win.
I have news for you, those places do not lean right either.
I have news for you, those places do not lean right either.
Exactly.
How can you have one-person-one-vote with such obviously anti-democratic institutions and procedures?
To those who say that's how the framers wanted it, that's true. But is that how WE want it? And do we think that's how it should be?
Here's a useful way to approach issues like this. Instead of arguing about whether to do away with them, aks what the arguments would be for ADDING them if we didn't already have them.
If we didn't have an Electoral College, what would be the argument for interposing such a convoluted barrier between the will of the people and the selection of the president?
If we didn't have a Senate, what would be the argument that would convince people to enlarge government to add an Americanized version of the House of Lords?
It's not really a state vs federal power issue. It's state vs state. Why does someone in Wyoming deserve 80x the Senate influence of someone in California?
What?
That is why there is the system of checks and balances. That is why you have the Senate and the House. Wyoming has what? One congressional seat whereas California has 52?
The problem with arguments like this is that you are opting for states like Wyoming, DC, Alaska, Vermont and Delaware to be able to veto the will of the people in states like Texas, Alabama, Florida and Georgia.
Hmmm. Considering how reactionary that last group is, maybe I should be on your side.
But I prefer democracy.
By the way, voters in California and New York are middle-of-the-pack (along with Iowans) in influence under the Electoral College system. It's not at all clear they would exert more influence if we did away with the Electoral College.
Right. The HoR is democratic, the Senate isn't. State lines are arbitrary means of checks and balances.
Pretty sure I already made those arguments above. Do you have me on ignore?
But a bill still has to pass both houses to become a law. It's still redistribution to maintain states' rights. I don't necessarily disagree with it, that's what it is. Some government redistribution is therefore justifiable.
Why is that bad if California has 52 times the number of people (or voters) than Wyoming?
The last time I looked - which was a long time ago - there were 416 people living in Georgia per elector, but only 113 people in Wyoming per elector.
Why should a vote pr president in Wyoming count nearly 4 times as much as a vote in Georgia?
How is that even remotely close to one-man-one-vote?
Where does it say that?
And before you say the 10th amendment, you'd better read it. Because it does NOT say that.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State. [U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 3, clause 1]
Article II
Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Twelfth Amendment
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.... The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President to the United States.
Pure democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
That's why don't have pure democracy.
You live in a Republic. The country has been amazingly prosperous and successful because of the system our framers developed. And you seem to advocate we move to a mob rule democracy. Where exactly can we find a mob-rule democracy that has worked?
It's clear today we are beginning to prove the following quotes true - and folks like you think it's great and want more...
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.
The average age of the world's greatest civilisations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.
The states have arbitrary rights. That's why the OP is asking the question.
Because it's an independent entity. We are a union of states - not just one central government. Federalism means each state gets an equal vote (the Senate) - the people's vote is through the House and the President.
Last edited:
Do you think the rights of Texas should trump the rights of Iowa because more people live in Texas? Shouldn't Iowans get an opportunity to stop something California would like the entire country to do?
I think Texas should have a proportionately larger influence than Iowa.
I really don't understand why so many people think we have to be exactly the same across the states. The unique nature of the states was one of the great things about the US. But it's becoming more and more less individualistic as the federal power grows.
It does in elections and in the House.
I can assure you that you don't want mob rule. We have been so successful because mob rule is checked by our current system.
They do in the House and in the Electoral College. Only the Senate keeps Texas from ramming open carry and down Iowans' throats.
You seem to advocate, like WWJD, a direct democracy - also known as mob-rule. You seem to be a fan - so please summarize all of the successful direct democracies that have existed in history.
And once you realize they don't exist -- maybe you want to ask yourself why not?
And then you can explain why you are trying to push it on the rest of us who already know better.
Last edited:
I'm guessing you haven't studied successful governments throughout history any more than I have. And obviously I'm not pushing anything on you. The structure of our government isn't going to change in my lifetime. It's a philosophical discussion.
Philosophically, a popular vote for president would be even more likely to produce a President Trump or a President Kardashian than our current system.
Whereas I would argue that having people who care get involved that way is more important.Apparently, Iowa doesn't demand anything at all. Walk up, register without any documentation whatsoever (not even proof you're at the right caucus-place based on residence), and caucus.
REALLY?
I would posit that a flawed list is better than no list.
I do think they should have to convince those holding the events that they live in Iowa. But that could probably be done by someone in the community saying "I know him" or by showing pretty much any sort of ID (as opposed to some specific ID).
I mean you have to keep the hordes of Canadians from perverting the Iowa caucuses - which we all know they will do if we don't at least ask them to pronounce key words that Canadians have trouble with.
Speaking of which, I saw my first commercial announcing the return of The Americans. In March, I think. Apparently it's the final season. Darn it. Great show. Does it end with their daughter turning them in? I would hate that.
