"Life in these, uh, this United States"

There is something cowardly about continuing to attack someone from behind a keyboard for no apparent reason. Why does it bother you that KenH uses the phrase "these United States?"

 

That phrase is a misnomer, Ken. Originally the country was designed for the power to be de-centralized. Local states were autonomous. In other words, it was a Republic, not a democracy. But thanks to those good ol' federalists, we have a centralized government. The federal government can usurp the state government, as we saw in the Civil war and have been seeing ever since. 'These United States' makes it sound like we are a decentralized Republic once again. Just call it the US, and don't refer to it as a confederation as that phrase implies. It's not.

 

Here is one "federalist" who is glad that These United States has become more federalized. The more the merrier as far as I am concerned!

 

I didn't know this so thanks for the lesson. I do agree the electoral college is no longer needed in my view. I would like to see the popular vote choose the president to give true value to an individuals vote.

 

He's the one that brought the subject up.

 

The the only parts of the (ooooooh I'm sorry, these) United States that would receive representation would be the urban areas like the northeast corridor, California and Florida. Our Founding Fathers knew what they were doing.

 

Here are a few quotes from that "dummy" James Madison.



A sincere and steadfast co-operation in promoting such a reconstruction of our political system as would provide for the permanent liberty and happiness of the United States. James Madison

[T]he destiny of the United States [is] to be a great, a flourishing, and a powerful nation…
State of the Union, December 1813

As the people of the United States enjoy the great merit of having established a system of Government on the basis of human rights, and of giving it a form without example, which, as they believe, unites the greatest national strength with the best security for public order and individual liberty, they owe to themselves, to their posterity and to the world, a preservation of the system in its purity, its symmetry, and its authenticity.
Supplement to the letter of November 27, 1830, to A. Stevenson 1865, IV, page 138)

Whilst it must be flattering to both nations [Great Britain and U.S.] to contemplate the progress of covering with their posterity and their language a greater space on the earth than any other language, it is obvious that a few years will tranfer the ascendency to the Unites States…James Madison
Letter to William S. Cardell, May__, 1820 III, page 172)

 

What makes this silly is it over using "These" instead of "The." How does this addition of the letters "s" and "e" matter?

 

I dont know. You tell me.

 

Well, the danger is that centralized powers tend to become corrupt. That was one of the reasons for having the power spread equally to independent states. I'm not entirely sure, but I know that a lot of people, Aristotle, Alexander Tyler, and others, Orwell, saw that there was a grave danger in centralized government. Namely, 'absolute power corrupts absolutely'.

 

Local governments can be just as corrupt as national governments. Tammany Hall, anyone?

Of course, we can't forget the racist laws of the Jim Crow-era South.

 

How so, first, every citizen would get one vote. Secondly, urban areas are now so diverse and diluted with views they would be split along with the rest of the country.

I think primaries should be voted by state. Whoever get's the most states will be their candidate. Forget this super delegate stuff, let the people be heard and stop letting people get rich off of an american right.

 

"Civics-101 class will please come to order!"

Let's look at this in just a bit more detail, shall we? There are 538 Electoral votes, currently in the Electoral College, which term, BTW, never occurs in the Constitution. The Population of the US is roughly 307,000,000 give or take a dozen or two. Roughly half of those are registered voters, so for the sake of argument, we'll call it around 150M. 64% of those voted, in the 2004 election, up from 60% in 2000.

BTW, why should MN, where almost 80% voted, get 'penalized' in voting, in order to 'subsidize' HI where more than half could not be bothered??

An Electoral vote averages out to about one electoral vote for each 570.000 population. The state nearest the mean in this, is currently OH. The states with the highest Pop. per EV are TX at 703K, followed by FL at 676K. The 'states' with the lowest Pop. per E. V. are WY at 175K and DC at 196K, although, of course, DC is not actually a state, but does get three Electoral votes.

OK, they are not "exactly equal, I'll agree, in that sense. Neither is the representation, nor are the Representatives 'equal' in the Congress, either. Ideally, a Representative should represent some 705K Population. IN followed by KY are the closest to this 'ideal', currently. Who "gets the gold-mine"? WY again, at 522K, followed by RI with a Rep. for each 528K. Who "gets the shaft"? MT at 960K, and DL at 865K. What's 'equitable' about this unless you are a Hoosier or a Kentuckian?

And would not the next step on this road to this obviously "Utopian Democracy", you apparently dream of, not be the elimination of the United States Senate? You make reference to "true value" of an individual's vote. But of course! Why not just eliminate what is the ultimate in inequity, in our system? Senators! Every state gets two of them. Surely you must see it as totally unfair that Sens. Mike Enzi and John Barasso from WY get the same voice (and vote) with a constituency of 522K, as do Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, of CA, whose constituency consists of over 38M, or about 73 times as many!

Every vote should have more or less equal weight, would seem to be your mantra, here. Can't get much more unequal than a Senator, for the average citizen's voice.

BTW, I can tell you a couple of places where every vote cast for the President does get about equal weight, and also assigns a "true value" to that vote, as well. Not to mention, the % of voters is much higher than in the United States, as well. Maybe you would prefer one of these locales, for all I know. (Might I make a suggestion in advance, that should that be your preference, you might want to be careful about what you post on your computer, however.)

In fact , in the last election in these two places, the percent voting was reported to be around 95% in one instance, and about 99% in the other. And the leading candidates got a very high percentage of the votes cast, as well.

I cannot speak for anyone else, nor do I even try, but I don't think I'd find that all that appealing, personally. Maybe it is just me, but I am simply not all that impressed that Cuba had an assembly turnout of better than 95%, with the exactly 614 candidates for 614 seats getting elected, and the assembly proceeding to choose it's 31 member Council of State (again, unanimously, of course), which, in turn, unanimously elected Raul Castro as "El Presidente" or that Kim Jong-il received 100% of the vote for President, with 99%+ 'participation' in North Korea!

"Class dismissed!"

Ed

 

One small detail you left out, the Electoral College does not have to go with the popular vote. This means the peoples voice could say one candidate yet the Electoral College chooses a different president. This almost makes your vote and right a matter of protocol since Electoral College really chooses the president. Same with super delegates. I think it should be mandatory they cast their votes according to the majority they represent or I say let the popular vote stand.

 

Great deal of difference between the electors, who are mandated by the Constitution, and the "Super delegates", which are a chosen option of an optional political entity, don't you think?

I'm not registered as a Democrat. And cannot even vote for such, in the Primary, of my state, due to my registration. Were I residing in a couple of other states, where there is an "open primary", this would be a different situation.

Ergo, the 'super-delegate' question is actually co,pletely irrelevant to me. Only once the nominee of every one of the parties, and any independent candidates are on the ballot, do any party's choices actually come into play.

And while it is technically true, that the Electoral college does not have to go with the popular vote (whiIch is not even considered in the selection of President by the US Constitution, save at the discretion of the legislatures of the several states), in every instance it has, with the possible exception of "The Recoinstruction" in 1876, by state.

You seem to keep not "getting it", for some reason!

The "peoples voice" (sic) says nothing, as to the selection of the President, save at the Legislatures of the various states, which is the very rhing, you would have rendered ineffective, and do away with, fi followed to your logical conclusion. Why should there even be 'states' in your mind? Just make a giant, all encompassing federal government, and let todays 50% + 1 be the modus operadi for everything. Tomorrow, it can be somethingn else!

Ed

 

This is my point, the constitution says I have a right to vote but my vote doesn't mean anything? This is like saying you can cast a ballot but it is useless cuz we're picking the president. This is why a lot of American's don't vote.