DEMOCRCAY 101: Should ALL Votes Weigh The Same?

[ulTRAX]

This a basic question about what SHOULD be a bedrock democratic principle: that all citizens have one vote and each vote should weigh the same.

Do you agree with this principle?

If not... who (or what group) should get bigger votes and at whose expense?

What is the moral justification for your opinion?

What is the moral justification for not including other groups?

[BlueEyedSon]

1. Your vote should be inversely proportional to your net worth.

:)

[Droopy]

2. None of this weighted stuff now

1 vote = 1 vote no matter who you are. I've heard of people wanting to make your vote weighted on how much taxes you pay, but I think that thsi is immoral. Every voter should have an equal say in who gets to be the leader. It's only fair. Many people don't have a voice at all besides in the voting booth.

[ulTRAX]

5. what about where someone lives?

[Droopy]

12. Why should your location be grounds for your vote counting more?

Is a person better just because they live in a certain area of the country?

[ulTRAX]

16. I don't believe so....

But that's the way our brand of federalism works. A few examples:

Currently the Senate gives 50% of the seats to 15% of the US population. Soon it will be 10%.

The EC formula gave the vote of one citizen in Bush's Florida lead 1000X the weight of a citizen's vote in Gore's national lead.

Amendments to the Constitution are held hostage by 1/4 of the states that can block any amendment. They can contain as little as 4% of the US population... and this is shrinking.

A citizen's vote for President in Wyoming weigh 3.5X that of a citizen in California.

Depending on how these numbers align... minority government as we have with Bush, can be the result.

[Nederland]

27. Actually

our brand of federalism favors Congress Democrats. You are correct in saying that the Senate gives 50% of its seats to only 15% of the population, and yet the Senate has a higher proportion of Democrats in it than does the House, whose makeup is more democratic. Yes, if the presidential election was determined by a straight majority vote Gore would be president, but if all of Congress was determined that way the Republicans would have a larger majority than they currently do.

[ulTRAX]

41. and your methodology is.... ?

Nederland wrote: "Actually our brand of federalism favors Congress Democrats.

And just what is the methodology used to arrive at that conclusion? Just how do you separate out the effects of federalism from Gerrymandering and how districts are created to insure the incumbent has an advantage?

"You are correct in saying that the Senate gives 50% of its seats to only 15% of the population, and yet the Senate has a higher proportion of Democrats in it than does the House, whose makeup is more democratic."

I'm not interested in who's ahead... I'm interested in the moral legitimacy of how someone is elected. I don't want to win in a rigged or anti-democratic system. Do you?

"Yes, if the presidential election was determined by a straight majority vote Gore would be president, but if all of Congress was determined that way the Republicans would have a larger majority than they currently do."

Actually Gore didn't receive 50% of the 2000 vote... though he no doubt would have if we had the sense to have a runoff system. But I have to ask again... what is that conclusion based on? A percentage of the actual 2002 vote? In reality the GOP BARELY got over 50% of the 2002 vote. That they have such a majority in the House is a function of our dysfunctional election system.

In 2002 the vote was as follows... source: http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2002/hseparty.htm

Democrats = 33,865,154
GOP = 37,289,707
Other= 2,689,665

Total 73844526

Dem = 45.8%
GOP = 50.049%
Other = 3.64%


edit for bad math. Dope slap to ulTRAX!

[BlueEyedSon]

3. If you donate to a party or a candidate or a PAC,

in excess of $2k, you may not vote. You already had your say.

[Bigfoot]

4. More fair than one person - one vote...

Our Electoral College is the very soul of our fair election system.

Please attend:

1) Blacks are less than 7% of the popular vote. If we went on a straight vote, you take their VOICE. If you want STATES like Louisiana, and Georgia, you HAVE to speak to blacks. That is just one example of how our system is MORE fair than one man, one vote.

2) Our Electoral College gives justice a chance. Women's suffrage would not have been a viable platform to run on, for example, in the political pressures of a straight democracy.

We have a democratic republic where both population and states are evenly weighted. I don't follow gay rights, black rights or women's rights, however, I do care that our system makes sure they ALL have a voice. A system so uniquely fair, it could only be American.

[ThomWV]

7. Well, I don't really Agree

You have to look at it in terms of the checks within Government too. You get more or less direct proportional representation in the House of Representatives, and so you select them by popular vote. Of course you pick Senators by popular vote also but in that case the weight of the small population states is relatively higher because they get two Senators no matter if there's 10 people or 10,000,000. So now when you get to the President why does the popular vote still not make sense? The electoral college was just a holdover from the days of almost nonexistant communications. The electors litterly had to cross the country. Simply put the geography of the country along with a lack of even the most rudimentry of communications systems made capturing the popular vote impossible. That certainly isn't the case in the USA of today. So in this day and age there's no good reason why the President shouldn't be selected just as a Member of the House of the Senate.

That's what I think.

[Bigfoot]

10. where did this come from?

I am seeing that view parroted in this forum, however, in addition to allowing access to the process by geographically diverse cultural groups (which democrats are all for, aren't we?) it also ensured the following checks and ballances.

* Filters the vote so in case of regional antagonism there's a reasonable solution (which was the founders' intent).

* Gives small states a larger say; otherwise they'd be entirely ignored (also the founders' intent).

* Provides a framework for oganizing a campaign. Without it, candidates wouldn't have a focus like they do now.


This is high-school civics 101. Day one. Page....one.

[ulTRAX]

13. I disagree.

Bigfoot wrote: "More fair than one person - one vote... Our Electoral College is the very soul of our fair election system.
1) Blacks are less than 7% of the popular vote. If we went on a straight vote, you take their VOICE. If you want STATES like Louisiana, and Georgia, you HAVE to speak to blacks. That is just one example of how our system is MORE fair than one man, one vote."

That is one of the oft-repeated rationales for the EC. Problem with it, is of course, that in reality the EC magnifies the voice of the rural white states. The fallacy of your argument is also in your claim that the EC protects minority groups. In reality it protects small states. In a popular election... I don't believe any group could be neglected... and there'd be no need to weigh votes differently nor run the risk of having an election loser imposed upon the nation. Surely you would agree that elections SHOULD be about gauging the Will of The People to obtain the consent of the governed. Or are you looking for a rigged system that benefits some US citizens at teh expense of others?

2) Our Electoral College gives justice a chance. Women's suffrage would not have been a viable platform to run on, for example, in the political pressures of a straight democracy.

You're making a claim with no supporting evidence...

"We have a democratic republic where both population and states are evenly weighted. I don't follow gay rights, black rights or women's rights, however, I do care that our system makes sure they ALL have a voice. A system so uniquely fair, it could only be American."

Are not states merely the people who live within? The 17th amendment eliminated much of this foolish, but persistent, illusion. Now, at least for the Senate... senators don't represent some abstract legal entity called a state... but merely the people that voted them in. So let's call a spade a spade. The Senate is a vote weighing scheme that gives any citizen in Wyoming 68X the vote as any citizen in California.

As for the EC... it too is a vote weighing scheme. If US citizen who chooses to live in Wyoming votes for President... the EC weighs that vote 3.5X more than a US citizen who chooses to live California. In 2000... the EC formula gave the vote of one US citizen in Bush's Florida lead 1000X the weight of a US citizen in Gore's national lead in determining the outcome. So much for your claim that our system is "uniquely fair". By democratic standards the EC and Senate are ant-democratic.

But getting back to my original questions: what is the moral justification for giving ANY US citizen a bigger vote? Since your noble sentiments seem to lie with helping women and racial minorities.... surely there are OTHER ways to accomplish your goals while still providing civic equality and morally legitimate government. Don't you think? Or don't you?

[Redleg]

38. You make it seem like a perfect system, which is not true.

Our "fair" system has been administered in ways that have been very unfair to minority groups, women, and the poor.

[ulTRAX]

39. perfect system? ROTF

Redleg wrote: "You make it seem like a perfect system, which is not true. Our "fair" system has been administered in ways that have been very unfair to minority groups, women, and the poor."

Let's not forget that minority groups, women, and the poor were officially disenfranchised by the original Constitution.

A system that grants SOME citizens a bigger vote than others can never be fair or produce mortally legitimate government. Election 2000 proves that.

[Redleg]

43. What does ROTF mean?

EOM

[alarimer]

51. maybe

But the EC is somewhat unfair. I live in TExas and I will vote for Kerry in the election but Bush (unless he dies before the election) will almost certainly win Texas and all its electoral votes. This makes my vote basically not count at all.

[ulTRAX]

57. The EC is an anti-democratic abomination

If someone wanted to devise an election system that could be challenged on moral grounds.... they couldn't have done a better job than the EC. First there is no run-off so there's no guarantee that a president will be elected with more that 50% of the vote. Its 100 "wildcard" votes give the small states an edge which can lead to minority government as we got in 2000. The winner-take-all system used by the majority of the states just adds insult to injury in depriving a huge segment of the population... citizens like you, of having their vote count for anything. Worst.... the population has been so brainwashed into believing the rationale for this anti-democratic abomination... that they grudgingly accept outrages like 2000.... even though it's changed the course of the nation AGAINST the Will of the People.

[Guava Jelly]

6. Republican votes

Since they have a lesser intellect should only count for .5% of a vote.
I mean seriously anyone who after these last 3 years that would still vote Repuke is to Unstable and ignorant to be Viable as one entire Vote.
But thats just me :)

[Bandit]

8. Are you referring to our "Electoral College"?

Other than that it is one person one vote and IMHO a Corporation should not be granted personhood as they have no vote.

[apsuman]

9. veiled attempt to ask about the Electoral College

When the consitution was drafted, they came up with this idea:

The House of Representative being the closest to the people will have direct elections of one person, one vote.

The Senate being our bastardized version of out perception of the roman senate of antiquity and the House of Lords represents the more aristocratic, noble side of our nation and would be elected by the legislatures of the individual states.

The President would basically be elected by splitting the difference between these two methods by coming up with the electoral college.

I think the College works, and here is why.

The college requires that whoever is elected president must have a broad national support. The South alone will not win and has not ever won anyone the presidency. Same with the northwest, same with the midwest.

To win a state's electoral ballots you must win the WHOLE state. Right now, Ohio (generall a rep state) and Pennsylvania (generally a dem state) are both considered in play. Bush and Kerry have to work lots of the nooks and crannys of the state to squeeze out every vote.

Sure Bush will ignore Illinois because it is firmly a Dem state, and Kerry will ignore Georgia, but without the college, all of those parts of Ohio and Pennsylvania would be ignored as well. The entire campaign would be fought is the six largest media markets in the country.

Also, since the fly over states offer electoral prizes no matter how small, it requires them to gain som notice from the incumbants and the challengers that would be nil if popular vote dettermined the presidentcy.

Finally, if the national vote totals were used for the presidentcy, it makes every presidential election a federal case (literally). 2000 was bad enough but it was only a problem because the electoral college vote was close. If Bush or Gore had an electoral vicotry without florida the particluars of the case would have never left the state of florida. If it were a national popular vote election then EVERY election year both parties would file suit in the most favorible federal court argueing voter fraud, etc.

Without

[Bigfoot]

11. **whew**

I was getting scared for my party for a minute there. Thank you!

[ulTRAX]

14. hardly

apsuman wrote: "veiled attempt to ask about the Electoral College"

Actually it a DIRECT attempt to identify discuss bedrock democratic principles.

[ulTRAX]

18. you have the lesson of election 2000 backwards

apsuman wrote: "Finally, if the national vote totals were used for the presidency, it makes every presidential election a federal case (literally). 2000 was bad enough but it was only a problem because the Electoral College vote was close."

Gee... given that Gore was WAY ahead in the popular vote... this closeness in the EC SHOULD make you rethink the rationale for the EC. The BEST it can do is ratify what the voters did at the polls... in which case it's not needed. Therefore we MUST focus on the WORST the EC can do: that is to impose an unelected president on the nation. It makes a mockery of the very concept of self-government.

Apsuman "If Bush or Gore had an electoral victory without Florida the particulars of the case would have never left the state of Florida. If it were a national popular vote election then EVERY election year both parties would file suit in the most favorable federal court arguing voter fraud, etc."

You have it backwards. If we had a popular vote... then none of the shenanigans in Florida would have mattered... nor would the USSC be involved.

[apsuman]

19. No, my point is sound.

If my resources are correct there are four elections where the popular vote would have yielded a different result than the electoral college. Those elections are:

1824
1876
1888
2000

However, the following elections were so close (I went throught the list quickly) that if it were decided by national vote and not by electoral college then any and/or all of these could have ended up contested in federal court. The parties would literally race to the most favorable federal court house to file. The Supreme Court could not help but get involved in some of these cases. The fact that the electoral college was in place meant the the loser was able to see that he lost by large enough margins in certain states that there could be no contest. With the EC each state election is a state issue, and must go to state court first. The supreme court getting involved lessened greatly.

1836
1844
1880
1884
1960
1968
1976

[ulTRAX]

20. so if Florida didn't exist... Gore would have won?

apsuman wrote: "No, my point is sound."

What was your point? If Florida didn't exist then Gore would have won?

"If my resources are correct there are four elections where the popular vote would have yielded a different result than the electoral college. Those elections are:"

TRANSLATION: about 11% of the elections have been overturned by an unaccountable and anti-democratic Star Chamber called the EC.

"However, the following elections were so close (I went through the list quickly) that if it were decided by national vote and not by electoral college then any and/or all of these could have ended up contested in federal court."

Or they could have had a run-off system. Back in 1787 and maybe for 60 years after that... the case could be made that a run off election was impractical since transportation was so poor. Today there are even other options such as the INSTANT run-off vote so voters can vote their conscience yet not worry about their candidate being a spoiler. There's just no excuse for the US to continue to have a system where the president can be elected without a majority in the popular vote... OR can have the election overturned by the EC. It's time for a Voters Protection Amendment that will guarantee that we have such a system. What's the alternative? More George aWol dWi Bushs?

It's well-intentioned people like you who are going to doom this nation to an eternity of anti-democratic government simply because you're blind to the root causes of why our system is so dysfunctional.

[apsuman]

21. let me try again.

You said that in 11% of the electon were over turned by the EC, well, everyone knew about the EC, it wasn't sprung on them the day after the election. The candidates know that they have to win the EC, not the popular vote. Your claim that the EC is a "star chamber" is over the top.

Starting in 1796, I count 54 presidential elections. Further, I was apparently wrong, in 1824, the election was thrown to the house of representatives as the constitution called for, so only 3 elections determined by the EC have had the winner of the popular vote not win the EC. So, 3 of 54 is 5.5%, half of your 11%. And if you say that the EC somehow twarts the will of the people Cleveland came back to beat Harrison in 1892.

In a previous post and even in another thread I tried to say that the EC serves a purpose. It did in 1796, it did in 1896, it did in 1996 and it does today. While not designed for this one task, I dare say the the EC has prevented as many as seven different Presidential elections from going to federal court. This country has had the same constitution with only 26 (27?) admendments to it since 1796 because the collective people agree with the ground rules for determining who the winner(s) is. Throwing 7 presidential elections to the federal court, not the state courts of Alabama to determine there those 4 electoral votes go, but to any federal judge willing to take up the case is a recipe for disaster. We would be as unstable as say Italy.

Further I think the EC works here because we have sovereign entities known as States that weild power. Parlimentary systems with immediate run off, conditional ballots, rank order voting, etc. work in nations, IMHO, where the regions do not have any unifying culture or political framework. The labour member from Glouster has to believe in the exact same labour platform as the labour member from Wessex. Here in this country, the Democrat Senator from Louisiana does NOT have to agree with the same platform as the democrat Senator from Vermont. If you are going to have a parliament system then you might as well as do away with the 50 states.

[ulTRAX]

22. oops.... bad ulTRAX... I mispoke

I meant that 11% of our PRESIDENTS were installed by the EC after losing the popular plurality vote...

That being said I have NOT looked at how many Presidents were installed with less than a majority of the popular vote as Clinton (1992) was.

Either way... the EC is an anti-democratic feature of the Constitution that can impose upon the nation a President who did NOT win a clear majority of the popular vote.

How is that defensible in a nation that is supposed be value self-government?

[apsuman]

23. How is that defensible...?

We have a two chambered legislature, imho, for two reasons.

First, i think anyway, it mirrors the house of commons/house of lords set up that the founders were used to.

Second, it provided a very smart way for the small states vs. large states debate to be settled.

So, we have a senate (nonproportional representation) to give the small states the same voice that the large states do (at least in one chamber).

The EC does the same thing. I think the EC only works because we have states. In those states we have unique cultures and experiences. I live in Kentucky about > < this close to the indiana border. but everyone (ok, the huge majority) on this side of the river root for the wildcats, and everyone on the other side roots for the hoosiers. And I think stuff like that makes a difference in defining our culture.

In Great Britian, its smaller former nations, Wales, Scotland, et al. just recently were allowed to set up thier own regional/provincial governments. Without that mechanism in place Britons had to look to the house of commons for EVERYTHING from government. Let me put it this way. If you live in a place where you have to look at one central authority for everything from National Defence to the parking in London then a parliament would probably be a better fit for you. If you live in a place where the national defence and interstates are handled by the federal government and the corporate laws are handled by the states, and traffic laws and education standards are tdetermined by local governments, then our system (even with the EC) would look more appealing.

I don't think the EC is perfect. I think however it has fewer problems than other proposed solutions.

One more thing, if you really wanted to take a step toward an EC that is closer to the popular vote that would be rather easy to set up, double the number of representatives in congress, from 435 to 870.

[ulTRAX]

26. the politics of 1787 vs TODAY

apsuman wrote: "How is that defensible...? We have a two chambered legislature, imho, for two reasons."

Did you EVER consider that I am NOT concerned about the politics of 1787? That I think the rational of THAT era has passed and that we need to free ourselves of that mental straight-jacket? What REALLY concerns me is that the Framer's may have accomplished what they set out to do... and forged a Constitution based on the politics of THEIR era... but in basing their formulas for amendments on states... and making it so difficult to reform the Constitution.... an unintended consequence has been to set THEIR politics in cement. Even now... people like you are mired in THEIR logic. You can't see citizens... you only see states. Because you do... your only recourse is to defend the politics of 1787. Here you go parroting that 1787 logic:

"First, i think anyway, it mirrors the house of commons/house of lords set up that the founders were used to.
Second, it provided a very smart way for the small states vs. large states debate to be settled.
So, we have a senate (nonproportional representation) to give the small states the same voice that the large states do (at least in one chamber)."

Yawn. The rest sniped for repetition. We all know our 4th grade history. It's time you moved on.

Maybe if you TRIED to look at the Constitution from a different vantage point... you'd FINALLY see my point. That vantage point is simply if a government's JUST powers are based upon the CONSENT of the governed... what sort of political system is required to insure that consent?

Obviously it requires the People having a right to be active in self-government. That entails a universal franchise... and that all votes weigh the same. Gone would be vote weighing schemes simply because they can NOT guarantee morally legitimate government as we've seen in Election 2000. Also a political system should offer citizens a chance to vote their conscience instead of the lesser of the evils. That is virtually impossible in our primitive first-past-the-post voting system. This is how our two party system has become entrenched. An unresponsive political system leads to a drop-off of voter participation and you can see the downward spiral. Soon we have deluded ourselves that a candidate won with a "landslide" even though they won with only about 26% approval of all those who COULD have voted. That's what happened to Reagan in 84. At some point the preponderance of the evidence is that a system is deeply flawed, and so dysfunctional that it FAILS to produce morally legitimate government. Can you see this? Hardly. You're obviously locked in the politics or 1787 and the BEST your straight-jacketed mind can conceive of is miner tweaks: Exhibit A:

"One more thing, if you really wanted to take a step toward an EC that is closer to the popular vote that would be rather easy to set up, double the number of representatives in congress, from 435 to 870."

[apsuman]

28. ...

"Did you EVER consider that I am NOT concerned about the politics of 1787? That I think the rational of THAT era has passed and that we need to free ourselves of that mental straight-jacket?"

Maybe you should be concerned about the politics of 1787.

The problems they encountered with framing the Constitution still exist today. Large states vs. small states. State's rights. checks and balances. A strong legislature. A weak executive department.

One of the fundamental building blocks of our government are the individual states. You seem to be completely ignoring those 50 political entities.

"What REALLY concerns me is that the Framer's may have accomplished what they set out to do... and forged a Constitution based on the politics of THEIR era... but in basing their formulas for amendments on states... and making it so difficult to reform the Constitution.... an unintended consequence has been to set THEIR politics in cement. "

I dare say that was an INTENDED consequence. Changing the Constituion is supposed to be hard to do. IMHO, countries that have their constitutions so easily rewritten are far less stable than ours. It's not that we are better people, it is because we in Kentucky can continue to subsidize tobacco production and limit taxes on tobacco products while people in California continue to make it harder and harder to smoke in that state. Every couple of years those hayseeds from Kentucky and those moonbeam surfers in California get to the polls to pick the people to determine National Defense, Foreign Relations, Import Policy, Tarriffs, federal taxation, interstates, Welfare policy and little else. In your version of government their would, imho, be constant turmoil as the hayseeds and the surfers would constantly be getting into bed with other coalition partners for the government one government after another would fail.

"Even now... people like you are mired in THEIR logic. You can't see citizens... you only see states. Because you do... your only recourse is to defend the politics of 1787. Here you go parroting that 1787 logic:"

No, I see citizens just fine. The power rests with them. I however also see the state. In everyday living I interact with local government the most, state government the next most, and the federal government the least. Simply ignoring the States does not make them go away.

You keep talking in "shoulds" which is fine for pie in the sky. I keep talking in reality.

Look, DU is probably the greatest concentration of people (percentage wise) that would like to boot the Electoral College, but there is no way you (or anyone else here) could get a consensus just here in DU for what to replace it with.

[ulTRAX]

30. you just don't get it....

ulTRAX: "Did you EVER consider that I am NOT concerned about the politics of 1787? That I think the rational of THAT era has passed and that we need to free ourselves of that mental straight-jacket?"

apsuman: "Maybe you should be concerned about the politics of 1787. The problems they encountered with framing the Constitution still exist today. Large states vs. small states. State's rights. checks and balances. A strong legislature. A weak executive department."
I'm concerned about the politics of today. The federalist formula is NOT capable of providing morally legitimate government. It is incapable of providing civic equality where each vote weighs the same. It is a system that by design does not provide about half of the citizens who vote any representation. It is a system that is incapable of providing many citizens the ability to vote their conscience rather than the lesser of the evils. I also believe it's the root cause of why the US is so far behind the other advanced democracies in providing basic rights such as health care.... and why the US is such an imperial nation.
As for you other comments... I have said REPEATEDLY that I am for checks and balances... and for protecting legitimate minority rights... and this can EASILY be done WITHOUT having to give minorities special powers. As for state's rights... there's NO reason states could not continue to exist as self-governing legal entities. My issue is with state suffrage which is just a vote weighing scheme. Any of this sinking in yet? I didn't think so.

apsuman: One of the fundamental building blocks of our government are the individual states. You seem to be completely ignoring those 50 political entities.

Red herring. See above.

ulTRAX: "What REALLY concerns me is that the Framer's may have accomplished what they set out to do... and forged a Constitution based on the politics of THEIR era... but in basing their formulas for amendments on states... and making it so difficult to reform the Constitution.... an unintended consequence has been to set THEIR politics in cement. "

apsuman: I dare say that was an INTENDED consequence. Changing the Constitution is supposed to be hard to do. IMHO, countries that have their constitutions so easily rewritten are far less stable than ours."
Red Herring Alert. I NEVER said it should be easy to reform the Constitution. What I have said is the formula based on states failed to take into account demographics. Now states with a mere 4.5% of the US population can, in theory, block ANY reform desired by the other 95.5%. And guess what... this percentage is SHRINKING. This is INSANE. So what do YOU think that threshold to reform should be?
Apsuman: "Every couple of years those hayseeds from Kentucky and those moonbeam surfers in California get to the polls to pick the people to determine National Defense, Foreign Relations, Import Policy, Tarriffs, federal taxation, interstates, Welfare policy and little else. In your version of government their would, imho, be constant turmoil as the hayseeds and the surfers would constantly be getting into bed with other coalition partners for the government one government after another would fail."
ROTF.... how do other advanced democracies do it? What you are AGAIN ignoring, of course, is that our system can produce minority government. Under our system minority government is NOT restricted to issues of interest to minorities. As we see with Bush... he's free to work for his ENTIRE ultra-rightist agenda... an agenda REJECTED by some 3 million Gore and Nader voters. In our politically retarded nation we don't even have the sense to get rid of the EC... but no one's even talking about a run-off system.

ulTRAX: "Even now... people like you are mired in THEIR logic. You can't see citizens... you only see states. Because you do... your only recourse is to defend the politics of 1787. Here you go parroting that 1787 logic:"

apsuman: No, I see citizens just fine. The power rests with them. I however also see the state.
Translation: as long as you support the concept of state suffrage then you are supporting a system that VIOLATE equal rights of citizens.
Apsuman:"In everyday living I interact with local government the most, state government the next most, and the federal government the least. Simply ignoring the States does not make them go away."
More strawmen. I have NOT ignored the states or suggested they not exist. But let me draw a connection. Why should not cities and towns... regardless of size, not have a second chamber in your state government? It would be democracy of municipal units. Of course this would seem a radical idea... even though it's just an extension of Federalist logic. It'd ludicrous to believe a town of 5,000 should have an equal vote with a city of 100,000... even if balanced off by a chamber based on a popular vote. Better to protect small towns with objective aid formulas that redistribute wealth for education or roads ... or home-rule rights on certain issues.
Apsuman: "You keep talking in "shoulds" which is fine for pie in the sky. I keep talking in reality."

Your version of reality is devoid of basic democratic principles and is nothing but the parroting of the politics of 1787 and why things can't change.

apsuman: "Look, DU is probably the greatest concentration of people (percentage wise) that would like to boot the Electoral College, but there is no way you (or anyone else here) could get a consensus just here in DU for what to replace it with."

It would be easy if people like you could free themselves of the politics of 1787 and rethought basic democratic principles and the role of a Constitution. That's not to suggest that the spoiled rotten folks in the small states who have been raised to believe they DESERVE more power than average citizens will be willing to give up their federal gravy train. It will NEVER happen as long as people believe that the politics of 1787 are more important than today.

[ulTRAX]

32. Ignore Above: Easier To Read Version of Post HERE

Some of the paragraphs got mereged together. Here's the way the post should have looked... with a minor addition.

ulTRAX: "Did you EVER consider that I am NOT concerned about the politics of 1787? That I think the rational of THAT era has passed and that we need to free ourselves of that mental straight-jacket?"

apsuman: "Maybe you should be concerned about the politics of 1787. The problems they encountered with framing the Constitution still exist today. Large states vs. small states. State's rights. checks and balances. A strong legislature. A weak executive department."

I'm concerned about the politics of today. The federalist formula is NOT capable of providing morally legitimate government. It is incapable of providing civic equality where each vote weighs the same. It is a system that by design does not provide about half of the citizens who vote any representation. It is a system that is incapable of providing many citizens the ability to vote their conscience rather than the lesser of the evils. I also believe it's the root cause of why the US is so far behind the other advanced democracies in providing basic rights such as health care.... and why the US is such an imperial nation.

As for you other comments... I have said REPEATEDLY that I am for checks and balances... and for protecting legitimate minority rights... and this can EASILY be done WITHOUT having to give minorities special powers. As for state's rights... there's NO reason states could not continue to exist as self-governing legal entities. My issue is with state suffrage which is just a vote weighing scheme. Any of this sinking in yet? I didn't think so.

apsuman: One of the fundamental building blocks of our government are the individual states. You seem to be completely ignoring those 50 political entities.

Red herring. See above.

ulTRAX: "What REALLY concerns me is that the Framer's may have accomplished what they set out to do... and forged a Constitution based on the politics of THEIR era... but in basing their formulas for amendments on states... and making it so difficult to reform the Constitution.... an unintended consequence has been to set THEIR politics in cement. "

apsuman: I dare say that was an INTENDED consequence. Changing the Constitution is supposed to be hard to do. IMHO, countries that have their constitutions so easily rewritten are far less stable than ours."

Red Herring Alert. I NEVER said it should be easy to reform the Constitution. What I have said is the formula based on states failed to take into account demographics. Now states with a mere 4.5% of the US population can, in theory, block ANY reform desired by the other 95.5%. And guess what... this percentage is SHRINKING. This is INSANE. So what do YOU think that threshold to reform should be?

Apsuman: "Every couple of years those hayseeds from Kentucky and those moonbeam surfers in California get to the polls to pick the people to determine National Defense, Foreign Relations, Import Policy, Tarriffs, federal taxation, interstates, Welfare policy and little else. In your version of government their would, imho, be constant turmoil as the hayseeds and the surfers would constantly be getting into bed with other coalition partners for the government one government after another would fail."

ROTF.... how do other advanced democracies do it? What you are AGAIN ignoring, of course, is that our system can produce minority government. Under our system minority government is NOT restricted to issues of interest to minorities. As we see with Bush... he's free to work for his ENTIRE ultra-rightist agenda... an agenda REJECTED by some 3 million Gore and Nader voters. In our politically retarded nation we don't even have the sense to get rid of the EC... but no one's even talking about a run-off system.

ulTRAX: "Even now... people like you are mired in THEIR logic. You can't see citizens... you only see states. Because you do... your only recourse is to defend the politics of 1787. Here you go parroting that 1787 logic:"

apsuman: No, I see citizens just fine. The power rests with them. I however also see the state.

Translation: as long as you support the concept of state suffrage then you are supporting a system that VIOLATE equal rights of citizens.

Apsuman:"In everyday living I interact with local government the most, state government the next most, and the federal government the least. Simply ignoring the States does not make them go away."

More strawmen. I have NOT ignored the states or suggested they not exist. But let me draw a connection. Why should not cities and towns... regardless of size, not have a second chamber in your state government? It would be democracy of municipal units. Of course this would seem a radical idea... even though it's just an extension of Federalist logic. It'd ludicrous to believe a town of 5,000 should have an equal vote with a city of 100,000... even if balanced off by a chamber based on a popular vote. Better to protect small towns with objective aid formulas that redistribute wealth for education or roads ... or home-rule rights on certain issues.

Apsuman: "You keep talking in "shoulds" which is fine for pie in the sky. I keep talking in reality."

Your version of reality is devoid of basic democratic principles and is nothing but the parroting of the politics of 1787 and why things can't change.

apsuman: "Look, DU is probably the greatest concentration of people (percentage wise) that would like to boot the Electoral College, but there is no way you (or anyone else here) could get a consensus just here in DU for what to replace it with."

It would be easy if people like you could free themselves of the politics of 1787, rethought basic democratic principles and the role of a Constitution. That's not to suggest that the spoiled rotten folks in the small states who have been raised to believe they DESERVE more power than average citizens will be willing to give up their federal gravy train. It will NEVER happen as long as people believe that the politics of 1787 are more important than morally legitimate government today.

[BlueEyedSon]

15. We don't live in a democracy.

it's a representational republic, or a representational demopublic, or an electoralational dohicky...

[ulTRAX]

17. the old red herring: we're a republic

It's the old red herring that we live in a republic not a democracy. In reality democratic principles underlie republics. As Hamilton wrote in Federalist 22 a fundamental maxim of republican governments is that the sense of the majority shall prevail. There is NOTHING inherent in the concept of a republic that requires the possibility of minority rule.

The Framers tried to incorporate those majority principles in government but with a complicated array of vote weighing scheme which gives the ILLUSION of legitimacy. So we can have a majority vote in the Senate cast by senators representing less than 50% of the population. That's how Clarence Thomas was confirmed. There can be a majority vote in the EC... and some Constitutional apologists will call it a mandate... even though a candidate LOSES the popular vote. In theory a minority president and senators representing a minority of the US population can pack the federal judiciary and enter the US into foreign treaties.

[sweetheart]

24. Getting to weighting votes

The easiest way, and the way i advocate myself is a constitutional
amendment making voting day a holiday and requiring MANDATORY VOTING
by every citizen over 18 years.

The same amendment would overturn all "felony disenfranchisement"
laws so we can weight the votes of the repressed.

The same amendment would end the electoral college. It is no longer
necessary or helpful to have a device designed to overrride the
real people's vote.

A total end to gerrymandering in the same bill, towards a mathematical grid system that does not allow congress people to
design their own districts.

An end to all partisan offices in elections... (no catherine harrises)

Establishing equal-media time laws for all political broadcasting
period.

Ending of corporate personhood and the wrongly-given right for
corporate free speech.

Establishing a stronger statute on broadcasting and print media
that lying is against the law, and unless a broadcaster can
prove good faith mistakes, that they may be sued in civilian
court for damages brought about by lies.

This would clean up the US democratic republic right fine.

[ulTRAX]

25. takes care of some problems... but...

It's a good start... though its chances of passage are about 0%. I also doubt mandatory voting requirements and a few other suggestions would pass legal challenges. What it fails to do is reform the US Senate which is arguably the BIGGEST vote weighing scheme in our government. It doesn't remedy the problem that amendments are too difficult to pass which means the federal government can not be responsive to the people. Nor does it break the grip of the two party system which is an unintended consequence of having all elections based upon set geographical districts/states. For third... forth and fifth parties to ever stand a chance there has to be some form of proportional representation on the national scale. Maybe then the US can FINALLY move into the modern age with other advanced industrial democracies

[sweetheart]

29. Ok, if we extend it to constitutional reform

Then i agree on further change.

I would support the reconstitution of the CONUS in to 5 states.
Alaska would be given a referendum on indpendence, joining with
canada or back with russia.

Hawaii would get a similar referendum along with puerto rico, guam
and the american virgin islands.

Then the remaining superstates would be the northeast with the
capital in philadelphia. This would include all of new england,
new york, eastern PA, NJ, maryland and include washington DC as
well which would be given representation!

Then the south would be the jefferson davis states, The midwest
would extend from pennsylvannia to the rockys. south to louisiana.

draw a rough water basin dividing line between the rockys and
the west coast. The southern superstate would include california
and nevada. Oregon and washington to the northern state.

This would divide america pretty much by water basin. Then each
region would be a nation state and have its own UNI-cameral
national body.

For the federal united regions government, it would have only
a senate and an executive, with all courts and laws dictated and
enforced by the 5 federal superstates. The relationship of the
superstates would be more autonomous, being able to set laws
differently. The federal would not adjudicate law.

I realize its zero%, but william gibson has inspired me with his
science fiction creating the internet. Dreaming a new and improved
way to have great governmnent, is inspired outside the USA, and maybe
the ideas are not just lost, but rather incorporated in to ideas
that could really change this world for the better.

Democraacy is a fantasy given the realpolitic of the empire of
corporate feudalism that is upon us. Given that, why not tell
even more outlandish stories, as they are all equally fantasy.

The constitution is gone. Nothing remains of that republic except
the consensus to stay together. Its like when a marraige goes bad
and nobody is willing to talk about it for fear of feeling all those
emotions and saddnesses about their dreams of it working out and
how it has not. The divorce proceedings remove the republic from
the people, so that we have no liberty (by its old definition of
participation in our own government). The republic is immune to
its own citizens.

We need a new constitution, a new marriage contract, that specifys
why we are together. I would hope love of democracy, justice and
equality before the law for all races and peoples, that this
heart of liberalism can be re-cast even stronger. I am no supporter of a global empire. THat
is not in the constitution. The nation is divorcing itself.


The north central, the southwest and the northwest.

[Zero Gravitas]

31. Absolutely yes

and I oppose the Electoral College for that reason. The EC serves no useful purpose, and the arguments for it are not vaild IMO.

[ulTRAX]

33. if you dislike the EC... what about...

WorstPresidentEver wrote "Absolutely yes and I oppose the Electoral College for that reason. The EC serves no useful purpose, and the arguments for it are not vaild IMO."

Then I take it you also oppose the concept of the US Senate where 15% of the population now has 50% of the seats?

[Zero Gravitas]

36. Senate

well at least the Senators are directly elected by a popular vote in each state. The Senate gives enough disproportionate influence to low population areas that there is no need to do it again for the Presidential elections through the EC. The Senators represent their States and are directly elected by the people in their states. The President represents the entire nation and is head of the executive branch and he also should be directly elected by the people he represents.

[ulTRAX]

37. the problem with your logic is....

WorstPresidentEver wrote: "Senate well at least the Senators are directly elected by a popular vote in each state."

"At least"? You make this anti-democratic institution almost sound respectable.

"The Senate gives enough disproportionate influence to low population areas that there is no need to do it again for the Presidential elections through the EC."

The problem with your logic is that you recognize some inherent right of small states to wield some power above and beyond their numbers. Why? What is the moral justification for just THOSE citizens to have such a right and not others? Once you recognize such a right... where does it stop? Obviously those at the Constitutional Convention expanded it further. Once THEIR rights are locked in cement in our reform-proof Constitution... what hope is there for other minority groups?

[tom_paine]

34. Easy question to answer: YES!

In fact, refuting this principle is EXACTLY what Freepers/Dittoheads/Brownshirts do every day of their Imperial Bootlicking Lives.

(regarding Freepers, not DU posters)

Do we really want to get on board with these monsters?

I didn't think so.

[ulTRAX]

35. federalism was nation's first affirmative action plan

tom_paine wrote: "Easy question to answer: YES! In fact, refuting this principle is EXACTLY what Freepers/Dittoheads/Brownshirts do every day of their Imperial Bootlicking Lives."

It's a central contradiction in modern Rightists that they have deluded themselves into believing opposing racial affirmative action proves they are uniquely for civic equality. Yet they EMBRACE the civic inequality that federalism has created: special powers and rights for SOME use citizens based upon a membership in some class. In this case their state residence. This is why I maintain that it's SO important to get back to first principles and not get lost in all the historical apologetics that surrounds our defective and anti-democratic Constitution.

[AngryAmish]

40. One Man = One Vote = My Vote

I would prefer that this nation be a dictatorship ran by me. That way the laws would suit me.

[WHAT]

42. Good discussion...

I tend to favor bigfoot's arguments because I see the fallacy in weighing only the interests of the individual when I think a big part of our national interests should also be concerned with natural resources and I think individual states have more ability to husband those natural resources. I also think of states being "specialists" (New Jersey/creative corporate financing). If, as a country, we only allowed the interests (or "consent") of the governed to influence law, who's to say we don't agree by a majority that California owes one tenth of its almond crop to the rest of the states...that's the type of problem I see with regards to true popular rule.

I liked the idea of doubling the number of representatives to fine-tune the true representation of the people by the house...diversity could be more exactly represented that way.

I've thought about Sweetheart's arguments for breaking-up the country into regional fifedoms. It seems like a step backwards to me because national laws covering a wider geographical area and larger population lubricate trade and co-operation making the synergy more productive for more people. I think this might be part of the reasoning behind the support for "imperialism" only that support assumes corporations as the organizing designers of politics...but politics has to do with the polity, the people. I fully agree with sweetheart that corporations should not have the force of a person or that they should have the ability to exploit state laws to creat sheltering niches to bypass popular will.

Anyway, thank you for this good discussion. I've been thinking about this since the 2000 election and, because I am no expert, I've been trying to figure things out by myself. I liked the arguments and points of view this thread illicited...any further arguments would be welcome.

[ulTRAX]

44. alternatives to protect minority rights....

WHAT wrote: "I tend to favor bigfoot's arguments because I see the fallacy in weighing only the interests of the individual when I think a big part of our national interests should also be concerned with natural resources and I think individual states have more ability to husband those natural resources."

I think the REAL issue is just how small states can not be taken advantage of by the big states. I believe that there's NO moral justification to give ANY group of citizens more power than others. Why lock in special powers for SOME citizens based on residence and deny this option for OTHER groups? That's what our Constitution. I believe the BETTER alternative both protects rights AND democracy. It's by making constitutional guarantees of rights such what we have in the Bill of Rights. There may be other alternatives such as guaranteeing farm state legislatures always chair relevant house and senate committees.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MadProphetMargin]

46. Hey, GOP-boi, WTF are you talking about?

Are you really this stupid?

Is anyone?

[MadProphetMargin]

47. One adult citizen, one vote.

It's the only way to be fair.

[arewethereyet]

48. of course they should be = but if you want to kick around what-ifs...

you could give those who own real estate more. not variable, just if you own real estate at all you get, I don't know, an extra half vote.

rationale being these people have a truely vested interest in politics and are more likely to take it seriously.

but I like it just the way it is.

[ulTRAX]

52. real estate?

That's sounding too much like the original Constitution that gave the vote to white males who owned property.

Why should the vote be conditional except for citizenship and age? Otherwise someone is ALWAYS trying to take it away.

[arewethereyet]

58. as I said I don't think it should but I don't get "always taking it away"

the general concept in the original was to insure that serious descisions get made by serious people. back then I doubt many non-whites owned property and they did not consider women capable of serios descisions. we've gotten over both of those ideas but but the idea that you could probably corner the 18-21 vote if you promise free beer and tuition. that may not be the best idea.

If you own your own home you will tend to be more serious about politics but on the whole I like one person, one vote.

[LividLiberal]

49. Of course al votes should weigh the same! Yegads!

Right now it seems as if voting is measured per dollar and it shouldn't be that way. The Republicans have a distinct advantage in the pocketbook.

[ulTRAX]

53. but vote are weighed differently already

The federalist formula we have already ensures some US citizens have a bigger vote than others. That's the entire idea of having the Senate and EC.

[Martin Eden]

50. You talkin' 'bout the ELECTORAL COLLEGE?

Votes are NOT weighed the same in presidential elections. Our Constitution was intentionally designed this way as a compromise to keep the more populous states from dominating the smaller states.

Electoral votes are equivalent to the number of Representatives in a state (1 for the smallest states) plus that state's two Senators. This gives the votes of small states an impact greater than their actual population.

Furthermore, it doesn't matter how many people in that state actually vote. Most of them could stay at home, and their Electoral votes are weighted the same as a state that has a high turnout.

Finally, all Electoral votes go to one candidate even if the vote in that state was narrowly split (like Florida last election). Another state with the same number of Electoral votes could be a landslide for one candidate, but the effect would be identical to the narrowly split state. This "winner take all" concept is not in the Constitution and wasn't always employed by all states, so it could possibly be changed.

Bur our votes will NOT be weighed the same in any case, unless a fundamental part of the Constitution is amended.

[ulTRAX]

54. why do STATES matter anymore?

Martin Eden wrote: "You talkin' 'bout the ELECTORAL COLLEGE? Votes are NOT weighed the same in presidential elections. Our Constitution was intentionally designed this way as a compromise to keep the more populous states from dominating the smaller states."

I should HOPE we already know that the EC and Senate were transparent vote weighing schemes. The REAL question is what is the moral basis for SOME US citizens continuing to have being a bigger vote than other US citizens? It the BEST answer we must defer OUR interests to the politics of 1787?

Does anyone else besides me think we should place 220 year old logic over OUR need for morally legitimate government? The simple truth is if we don't want any more Election 2000s... the EC has to be abolished.

[Martin Eden]

60. No chance to abolish the Electoral College

It would require a Constitutional amendment ratified by two thirds of the states, and there are enough small states benefitting from the EC to make passage of such an amendment practically impossible.

In regards to the EC, what I would like to see is proportional assignment of a state's electoral votes. Early in our history many states split their electoral votes. For example, a small state might have split its votes 2/1. But when some states started implementing the winner take all system, states that split their votes were being marginalized. A candidate would focus more on states where a large number of electoral votes were at stake rather than working to gain that 1 split vote.

What I'd like to see is a law that returns all states to splitting their votes, or even going fractional, such as a split of 1.6 - 1.4. However, I don't see much chance of that taking place either.

IMO, the election reforms this country really needs (and can implement) are:

campaign finance reform
Until we eliminate the legalized bribery that masquerades as election in this country, our "elected" representatives will continue to act on behalf of the monied interests rather than the people. We The People own the airwaves, and through the mediums of television & radio the candidates and their issues can be given wide exposure at little cost.

instant runoff voting
This commentary by 1980 independent presidential candidate John Anderson says it very well:
http://www.fairvote.org/articles/openprocess.htm

voting technology
Hanging chads and butterfly ballots in 2000 illustrated the need for balloting technology that accurately recorded the voter's intent and reduced the number of disqualified ballots. Unfortunately, part of the solution has been to install electronic machines that leave no paper trail and are vulnerable to computer hacking:
http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/3/2004/834

[rman]

55. the design of the constitution results

in the smaller states dominating the more populous states.

[ulTRAX]

56. why should the majority accept minority rule?

rman wrote: "the design of the constitution results in the smaller states dominating the more populous states."

That's not quite true... the Constitution gives a bigger voice to the small states that their populations don't deserve. Even in Election 2000 the small states alone could not have overturned the popular vote without some big states. But what happens on occasion is that the numbers align in such a way that this small state advantage leads to minority government such as we have with Bush.

Combine that with an anti-democratic Senate and Gerrymandering in the House (not a Constitutional feature) and it doesn't take long before the moral legitimacy of the entire federalist power sharing formula is called into question.

Hamilton raised some interesting questions in Federalist 22.... at what point would the larger states rebel against receiving their laws from the minority. He was referring to the old Articles of Confederation but the question remains.

[rman]

59. reply

> why should the majority accept minority rule?

why ask me? i don't think they should.

> rman wrote: "the design of the constitution results in the smaller states dominating the more populous states."

That's not quite true... the Constitution gives a bigger voice to the small states that their populations don't deserve.

> which is pretty much what i am saying

> Even in Election 2000 the small states alone could not have overturned the popular vote without some big states. But what happens on occasion is that the numbers align in such a way that this small state advantage leads to minority government such as we have with Bush.

yeah, the small states need only a few large states to tip the scale, iow the smaller states are rather dominant

> Combine that with an anti-democratic Senate and Gerrymandering in the House (not a Constitutional feature) and it doesn't take long before the moral legitimacy of the entire federalist power sharing formula is called into question.

agreed

> Hamilton raised some interesting questions in Federalist 22.... at what point would the larger states rebel against receiving their laws from the minority. He was referring to the old Articles of Confederation but the question remains.

well, i don't know when that will be. i guess we'll see


What is you position on this issue anyway? At times it appears as though you are arguing for both sides.

To summarize my position: i think it should be a matter of truely "one-man-one-vote" to elect, without intermediate steps of 'grouping' of votes, either on the level of districts or on the level of states. In other words: only the popular vote should count.