The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

GSPODS wrote:Not that it matters at this point, but shouldn't we be blaming the Supreme Court for Bush? They're the idiots who overlooked the popular vote (You know, the Will Of The People) and sided with the Electoral College (Fix).

I can't tell, is this tongue in cheek or are you serious the Supreme Court should have rewritten the Constitution after the candidates campaigned and the votes were cast expecting them to be counted according to the electoral college?

I'm serious the members of the Supreme Court should be tasered.
The rest of it is now history, whether I agree with the law as written or not. And actually I don't. I think the popular vote should supercede the electoral college, since the electoral college is supposed to be an accurate representation of the popular vote in the first place. But that's irrelevant to the law as written.

GSPODS wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

GSPODS wrote:Not that it matters at this point, but shouldn't we be blaming the Supreme Court for Bush? They're the idiots who overlooked the popular vote (You know, the Will Of The People) and sided with the Electoral College (Fix).

I can't tell, is this tongue in cheek or are you serious the Supreme Court should have rewritten the Constitution after the candidates campaigned and the votes were cast expecting them to be counted according to the electoral college?

I'm serious the members of the Supreme Court should be tasered.
The rest of it is now history, whether I agree with the law as written or not. And actually I don't. I think the popular vote should supercede the electoral college, since the electoral college is supposed to be an accurate representation of the popular vote in the first place. But that's irrelevant to the law as written.

The electoral college isn't supposed to be the popular vote. It's supposed to give smaller states more weight so they're not run over by the larger ones. That's why it's a combination of House votes (population weight) AND Senate votes (2 per state) so larger population gives larger representation but not totally so.

You can disagree with that approach, but that was the intent. They were in fact capable of counting as high as the total population in colonial days. Had they wanted popular vote that's what it would have been.

If you want popular, the solution is Constitutional amendment, they gave us that process too. Personally I don't care because whichever way they do it we're going to get the same crappy politicians and I don't really care how they splice them up as long as the counting process is determined BEFORE not after the vote.

BTW, I'm with you on tasering the Supreme Court though.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

GSPODS wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

GSPODS wrote:Not that it matters at this point, but shouldn't we be blaming the Supreme Court for Bush? They're the idiots who overlooked the popular vote (You know, the Will Of The People) and sided with the Electoral College (Fix).

I can't tell, is this tongue in cheek or are you serious the Supreme Court should have rewritten the Constitution after the candidates campaigned and the votes were cast expecting them to be counted according to the electoral college?

I'm serious the members of the Supreme Court should be tasered.
The rest of it is now history, whether I agree with the law as written or not. And actually I don't. I think the popular vote should supercede the electoral college, since the electoral college is supposed to be an accurate representation of the popular vote in the first place. But that's irrelevant to the law as written.

The electoral college isn't supposed to be the popular vote. It's supposed to give smaller states more weight so they're not run over by the larger ones. That's why it's a combination of House votes (population weight) AND Senate votes (2 per state) so larger population gives larger representation but not totally so.

You can disagree with that approach, but that was the intent. They were in fact capable of counting as high as the total population in colonial days. Had they wanted popular vote that's what it would have been.

If you want popular, the solution is Constitutional amendment, they gave us that process too. Personally I don't care because whichever way they do it we're going to get the same crappy politicians and I don't really care how they splice them up as long as the counting process is determined BEFORE not after the vote.

BTW, I'm with you on tasering the Supreme Court though.

The highlighted yellow says everything. Regardless of the How, we are going to end up with an idiot, because only an idiot would want that job.

Kazoo said

The electoral college isn't supposed to be the popular vote. It's supposed to give smaller states more weight so they're not run over by the larger ones. That's why it's a combination of House votes (population weight) AND Senate votes (2 per state) so larger population gives larger representation but not totally so.

You can disagree with that approach, but that was the intent. They were in fact capable of counting as high as the total population in colonial days. Had they wanted popular vote that's what it would have been.

However, the writers assumed that electors would be local notables, would meet, deliberate freely, and vote on a president and a vice-president. The writers had no way of knowing that loyalty-based political parties would tie down everything. Madison talked a lot about parties, but he meant ever-changing groupings, not permanent factions.

Party changed the meaning of the electoral college, as did the continuing movement in the US to flatten out hierarchies...to eliminate the deference by which, say, the Lee, Carter, and Washington clans of Virginia, or the Livingstons and Schuylers of New York assumed that hey would be selected to lead their communities and would battle among each other to control their states.

You can see the assumption of deference easily in 17th and 18th century English debate, where all sides believed that there were "public" leaders who interacted in parliament to make laws, and there were private people who had the right only to obey. Not quite the same here, and less and less acceptance of hierarchy by independence. (See Caroline Robbins, Eighteenth Century Commonwealthmen, and Gordon Wood's Radicalism of the American Revolution).

The Electoral College did not fit reality in 1790, even less in 1800. It was patched, a little, after the Jefferson/Burr fiasco, but we still have it.

By the way, it seems to me that the Consitutionalists, like Hamilton, Wilson, and Madison, hoped to wear down the power of the states. That's why the Constitution begins "We the people of the US", not "We the states", and it's why they had it ratified in state conventions rather than by state legislatures.

So...better ideas than the old Electoral Colege?

welch wrote:Kazoo said

The electoral college isn't supposed to be the popular vote. It's supposed to give smaller states more weight so they're not run over by the larger ones. That's why it's a combination of House votes (population weight) AND Senate votes (2 per state) so larger population gives larger representation but not totally so.

You can disagree with that approach, but that was the intent. They were in fact capable of counting as high as the total population in colonial days. Had they wanted popular vote that's what it would have been.

However, the writers assumed that electors would be local notables, would meet, deliberate freely, and vote on a president and a vice-president. The writers had no way of knowing that loyalty-based political parties would tie down everything. Madison talked a lot about parties, but he meant ever-changing groupings, not permanent factions.

Party changed the meaning of the electoral college, as did the continuing movement in the US to flatten out hierarchies...to eliminate the deference by which, say, the Lee, Carter, and Washington clans of Virginia, or the Livingstons and Schuylers of New York assumed that hey would be selected to lead their communities and would battle among each other to control their states.

You can see the assumption of deference easily in 17th and 18th century English debate, where all sides believed that there were "public" leaders who interacted in parliament to make laws, and there were private people who had the right only to obey. Not quite the same here, and less and less acceptance of hierarchy by independence. (See Caroline Robbins, Eighteenth Century Commonwealthmen, and Gordon Wood's Radicalism of the American Revolution).

The Electoral College did not fit reality in 1790, even less in 1800. It was patched, a little, after the Jefferson/Burr fiasco, but we still have it.

By the way, it seems to me that the Consitutionalists, like Hamilton, Wilson, and Madison, hoped to wear down the power of the states. That's why the Constitution begins "We the people of the US", not "We the states", and it's why they had it ratified in state conventions rather than by state legislatures.

So...better ideas than the old Electoral Colege?

The best idea I can think of is to consider the Constitution as a whole was written between 1787 and 1791. Preponderance of the Evidence, Reasonable Doubt, and Clear and Convincing Evidence litmus tests show that the Constitution, as currently interpreted, meets and exceeds the burden of proof as outdated, ineffective, and inapplicable.

The only correct interpretation of the Constitution is that of Strict Construction. The Founding Fathers did not build into the laws framing these United States room for interpretation of the Amendment as written specific to Presidential Election.

I could write, and have in fact written a novela on the intended interpretation of the Constitution as compared with the modern-day interpretation. I'll give the Reader's Digest version here with regard to only the laws applicable to Presidential election.

12th Amendment
"No Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

How the above should be stated in modern times:
"No Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, nor any Person in consortium or collusion therewith shall be appointed an Elector."

Problem Solved

welch wrote:The writers had no way of knowing that loyalty-based political parties would tie down everything

They had an inkling because they considered banning parties for office holders. But I agree they never expected it to go to the point it has where members of both parties overwhelmingly adopt the view of their respective party as their own. It's sad that in such a diverse country the majority of the people believe one of two sets of beliefs created for the self interest of politicians rather then the country or it's citizens.

I think the root of that is as Ronald Reagan so correctly stated "One thing our Founding Fathers could not foresee was a nation governed by professional politicians who had a vested interest in getting reelected. They probably envisioned a fellow serving a couple of hitches and then . . . getting back to the farm."

That they are now professionals leads them to the manipulation of the citizenry through parties.

welch wrote:By the way, it seems to me that the Consitutionalists, like Hamilton, Wilson, and Madison, hoped to wear down the power of the states. That's why the Constitution begins "We the people of the US", not "We the states", and it's why they had it ratified in state conventions rather than by state legislatures.

Clearly Hamilton and Madison believed a federal government was necessary. But I can't agree they intended it to "wear down the power of the states."

Hamilton said "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"

Doesn't sound like someone who wanted Federal power to grow over the states. Madison didn't "oppose" them but considered them unnecessary for the same reason and only embraced them becoming "Father of the Bill of Rights" initially to get enough support to ratify the Constitution.

And the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Bill of Rights specifically to protect State powers, though that's ignored by the courts today. One of the biggest mistakes in our country's history was the 17th Amendment. That was a colossal mistake as DC insiders replaced State accountability. And again that's far worse because of your point again on political parties.

welch wrote:So...better ideas than the old Electoral Colege?

In terms of how we vote, I think changing the Electoral College is a solution in search of a problem. It is only going to matter in close elections and close elections aren't going to be perfect anyway. Personally I think the members of the two ideologically brain dead parties need to stop group thinking. When they do that the problem will be solved and if they don't it won't.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

welch wrote:The writers had no way of knowing that loyalty-based political parties would tie down everything

They had an inkling because they considered banning parties for office holders. But I agree they never expected it to go to the point it has where members of both parties overwhelmingly adopt the view of their respective party as their own. It's sad that in such a diverse country the majority of the people believe one of two sets of beliefs created for the self interest of politicians rather then the country or it's citizens.

I think the root of that is as Ronald Reagan so correctly stated "One thing our Founding Fathers could not foresee was a nation governed by professional politicians who had a vested interest in getting reelected. They probably envisioned a fellow serving a couple of hitches and then . . . getting back to the farm."

That they are now professionals leads them to the manipulation of the citizenry through parties.

welch wrote:By the way, it seems to me that the Consitutionalists, like Hamilton, Wilson, and Madison, hoped to wear down the power of the states. That's why the Constitution begins "We the people of the US", not "We the states", and it's why they had it ratified in state conventions rather than by state legislatures.

Clearly Hamilton and Madison believed a federal government was necessary. But I can't agree they intended it to "wear down the power of the states."

Hamilton said "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"

Doesn't sound like someone who wanted Federal power to grow over the states. Madison didn't "oppose" them but considered them unnecessary for the same reason and only embraced them becoming "Father of the Bill of Rights" initially to get enough support to ratify the Constitution.

And the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Bill of Rights specifically to protect State powers, though that's ignored by the courts today. One of the biggest mistakes in our country's history was the 17th Amendment. That was a colossal mistake as DC insiders replaced State accountability. And again that's far worse because of your point again on political parties.

welch wrote:So...better ideas than the old Electoral Colege?

In terms of how we vote, I think changing the Electoral College is a solution in search of a problem. It is only going to matter in close elections and close elections aren't going to be perfect anyway. Personally I think the members of the two ideologically brain dead parties need to stop group thinking. When they do that the problem will be solved and if they don't it won't.

To eliminate group thinking, you must eliminate groups. I'd be perfectly fine with the non-existence of political parties. For starters, that would kill the lobbyists.

GSPODS wrote:

Kaz wrote:In terms of how we vote, I think changing the Electoral College is a solution in search of a problem. It is only going to matter in close elections and close elections aren't going to be perfect anyway. Personally I think the members of the two ideologically brain dead parties need to stop group thinking. When they do that the problem will be solved and if they don't it won't.

To eliminate group thinking, you must eliminate groups. I'd be perfectly fine with the non-existence of political parties. For starters, that would kill the lobbyists.

The Libertarian party has clearly demonstrated that. While they are right on most issues, they militantly attack members for disagreeing on any issue. That's why I consider myself a small "L" libertarian, a believer in the ideology but not a member of the party. A party that gets about 1% will tolerate NO disagreement. Sure, that's a recipe to grow.

Though I generally vote for the party as the best candidate. No one has brought more attention to them then Neal Boortz and yet he is viciously attacked in the party for his view on Iraq. While I disagree with him on Iraq I don't consider him not a libertarian because he disagrees with me on one issue.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

GSPODS wrote:

Kaz wrote:In terms of how we vote, I think changing the Electoral College is a solution in search of a problem. It is only going to matter in close elections and close elections aren't going to be perfect anyway. Personally I think the members of the two ideologically brain dead parties need to stop group thinking. When they do that the problem will be solved and if they don't it won't.

To eliminate group thinking, you must eliminate groups. I'd be perfectly fine with the non-existence of political parties. For starters, that would kill the lobbyists.

The Libertarian party has clearly demonstrated that. While they are right on most issues, they militantly attack members for disagreeing on any issue. That's why I consider myself a small "L" libertarian, a believer in the ideology but not a member of the party. A party that gets about 1% will tolerate NO disagreement. Sure, that's a recipe to grow.

Though I generally vote for the party as the best candidate. No one has brought more attention to them then Neal Boortz and yet he is viciously attacked in the party for his view on Iraq. While I disagree with him on Iraq I don't consider him not a libertarian because he disagrees with me on one issue.

What I find completely amusing, in a disgusting way, is that no two people agree on all of the issues. The policial parties trying to convince educated people that the members of their party agree on everything is a main reason why I can't take any of them seriously regardless of what stance they purport to take on an issue, or of how many of their cohorts they claim to support them. Their all so busy being full of it that if they ever slip and give away their true position on an issue, no one would ever know.

Hello, constitutional ponderers...

- there had never been disciplined political parties, loyal to themselves from election to election, when the authors wrote the Constitution. That makes the Electoral College reasonable, within what they knew. Even the British parliamentary parties were ever-shifting interest-gangs.

- I think that the writers assumed that important men (often elected by voice vote) would gather, deliberate, and choose. Big surprise during the 1790's, although secret ballot was not common for a long time.

- On Hamilton, Madison, Wilson, and their faction against the states, I'm working from a recent biography of George Mason, which quotes some of the letters before the Constitution was written.

- It is also interesting to read Henry Adams Histories of the Jefferson and Madison administrations. Jefferson, after he had whacked Madison on the side of the head for being too friendly to Hamilton , proceeded to organize the strictest of strict construction policies. Adams observes that Jefferson could not lead the country without trimming off much of his strictness.

- Consider the Louisiana Purchase. Jefferson wrote to some of his allies asking if they should first get a constitutional amendment allowing the President to expand the territory of he US. In fact, while there was the Northwest Ordinance (which took a million gallons of sweat to pass) that defined how states should be organized out of territory given to the US in the 1983 treaty, there was no precedent for absorbing a large territory containing people who had not asked to belong to he Union. However, given that all goods from west of the Appalachians had to be shipped down the Ohio and Mississippi to the Spanish/French port of New Orleans, everyone feared that he western territories might split off to become independent countries. Before the great canals, it was misery to ship east from Pittsburgh even to Philadelphia.

So...Jefferson could stick by his strict constructionism, or he could buy Louisiana without authorization, and save the Union.

If you want, I'll look up some of he Hamilton/Madison "nationalist" correspondence that talks about their hopes that the states would vanish.

That doesn't mean that everyone agreed, but it was in the heart of many leaders who had seen the states tie up the Confederation government.

*

Better than the Electoral College? It's a quirky thing that works, mostly, but in no way like the authors expected. It is one part that has not evolved, in practice. I don't now if proportional voting would be better, but I doubt it.

*

By the way, one central problem with the old discussion about whether Bush should be impeached is that the authors spent almost no time discussing the impeachment section. Check Madison's Notes, and you'll see that the discussion covers only a few pages, at the end of the convention...suggesting that the delegates were tired and just wanted to toss the whole issue. According to Henry Adams, the first time anyone tried to impeach a judge, they couldn't decide what the Constitution had intended.

The original intention of the electoral college was to have one elector for every 30,000 citizens. It is doubtful, to say the least, that our framers envisioned the population of these United States reaching the current estimation of 303 to 304 Million. Under the originally intended Constituional guidelines, there would need to be 101,000 electors. Although the Constitution itself has not changed, the interpretation has. Perhaps if there were 101,000 electors there would be a much more accurate assessment of the will of the People.

The original intention of the electoral college was to have one elector for every 30,000 citizens. It is doubtful, to say the least, that our framers envisioned the population of these United States reaching the current estimation of 303 to 304 Million. Under the originally intended Constituional guidelines, there would need to be 101,000 electors. Although the Constitution itself has not changed, the interpretation has. Perhaps if there were 101,000 electors there would be a much more accurate assessment of the will of the People.

...although Franklin predicted that the American colonies would become more populated and wealthier than Britain. Sometime between 1750 and 1763, old Ben floated an idea something like the 20th century Commonwealth of Nations: there would be one monarch ruling one empire, but separate parliaments in London and over here.

I think Franklin guessed that the British American colonies would equal old Britain in about 100 years...say, 1860. He wasn't far off.

Incidentally, the framers rejected the idea of having the House of Representatives, or the House plus the Senate, select the President...on grounds that it would make the President too dependent on Congress. (If they could only have guessed!).

The Eletoral College gives electors the same proporation as House + Senate, and, like the old Confederation Congress, gives a state's entire vote to one candidate. By adding the weight of Electors representing House members, it gives some power to he total number of people in a state. Not a bad compromise, on the whole.

Interesting to think about the total population compared to the number of electors. It would require a House of Representatives with 101,000 members (!), and a buildiing big enough that everyone could speak (!!).

Maybe at that point, we could go to the ancient Athenian method of drawing lots to pick members of their assembly. Athens had about 100,000 people in the time of Pericles, or so I remember.

How about random selection of all members of government?

First of all, let me congratulate you on correctly spelling the word as "Eletors", as in the elite.

You remember the time of Pericles? And I thought I was getting old.

Random selection of all government officials would have to subject to some kind of litmus test. Otherwise, we could end up with the next Charles Manson in a position of power. I don't think we want his type as Chairman Of The Joint Chiefs Of Staff, although what we have now isn't all that far removed.

So many inherent flaws exist I think the only starting point is to re-write all laws pertaining to elections from the beginning to the end. Not everything about the system is flawed, but like most other laws there are far too many loopholes. I think an IQ test should be the first requirement for all candidates, followed immediately by an uncommon sense test. After all, shouldn't the people in these positions be both more intelligent and have more logic and reason than the people they represent? Otherwise, why have representation at all? It's like hiring a stupid attorney.

GSPODS wrote:First of all, let me congratulate you on correctly spelling the word as "Eletors", as in the elite.

You remember the time of Pericles? And I thought I was getting old.

Random selection of all government officials would have to subject to some kind of litmus test. Otherwise, we could end up with the next Charles Manson in a position of power. I don't think we want his type as Chairman Of The Joint Chiefs Of Staff, although what we have now isn't all that far removed.

So many inherent flaws exist I think the only starting point is to re-write all laws pertaining to elections from the beginning to the end. Not everything about the system is flawed, but like most other laws there are far too many loopholes. I think an IQ test should be the first requirement for all candidates, followed immediately by an uncommon sense test. After all, shouldn't the people in these positions be both more intelligent and have more logic and reason than the people they represent? Otherwise, why have representation at all? It's like hiring a stupid attorney.

Wouldnt' it be nice if we could get politicians to run on the existing laws they propose to eliminate rather then new laws they propose to enact? If they would would debate over who would cut more from the bloated budget?

A large government will always be a threat because once in place they must constantly DO things. We are safer with fewer agencies and bureaucrats then no matter how many controls and restrictions we try to put on the ones we have.