How many of you will stop watching before the host even says a word?

fishingcomic

https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/chris-hayes-we-should-run-the-presidential-election-the-way-we-run-every-other-election-67896389921?fbclid=IwAR0aLLdA0FrsmoYaBQTiVIaab0ZkyDdOqaBzPuEywBnNAeWewpN8n2SjnGU

sherb

https://twitter.com/baseballcrank/status/1167787183308234752?s=21

sherb

Pithy argument, I’ll give him that.

“If you run for fourth grade class president, you win if and only if you get the most votes.“

MikeA

You have state and local gov where you do get to elect officials that reflect your values for your city and state. Isn't that enough? Live in your ultra progressive, bliss filled, cities and stop worrying about us. We're good. We like having a seat at the table and determining how the country as a whole is run.

On the other hand ,go ahead and continue to disenfranchise the non city dwellers. It worked so well last time.

fishingcomic

No it is not enough.

Why should you have a bigger seat at the table than the most populous states?

You still get the same number of Senators as California, is that not enough?

creekyguy

1. Its called the Constitution. It specifies how to change itself. Genius.
2. The flaw in going to a strict popular vote: Each state monitors its own votes: they can report totals that are suspect, But there is no federal system to enforce honest totals. It will not be more trustworthy than the present system based on the Constitutional Census allotment of electoral votes.
3. The Electoral college system and winner takes all provisions of most states enforces the 2 party system because minority parties can get a decent % of the votes but no electoral votes and no say in who wins. Enforcing the 2 party system means that the substantial power of the party officials (political hacks) is preserved. THE GOP AND DEM ESTABLISHMENTS WILL NEVER ACCEPT LOSING POWER, HENCE THE PRESENT SYSTEM CAN'T BE CHANGED.
4. Sorry about that.

fishingcomic

Well an amendment would be impossible as the states that benefit from the current system would need to ratify it. However many states are eliminating the winner take all system. Which would probably be the way this is going to go.

Shawn C.

Make D.C a state. Puerto Rico too if the want it. While we’re at it, let’s give statehood to Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands. But not American Somoa. We’ve got enough ****ing mormons already.

fishingcomic

Also as a liberal in Utah, my vote is worthless. How is that fair?

Buford

@fishingcomic said:
Also as a liberal in Utah, my vote is worthless. How is that fair?

As a conservative in California my vote is worthless. How is that fair? It all works out in the end due to the electoral college.

fishingcomic

No eliminate the electoral college and both our votes matter.

Steven

@fishingcomic said:
No it is not enough.

Why should you have a bigger seat at the table than the most populous states?

You still get the same number of Senators as California, is that not enough?

Given that this was one of the major compromises to get the Constitution ratified, should we allow less populous states to secede?

A deal's a deal, no?

sherb

It’s sort of amusing to hear him say the EC would be unconstitutional if it wasn’t in the constitution, but I take his point about malapportionment. That’s what he’s really saying, that “one man, one vote” means the electoral college is an undemocratic system. And in a sense, he's right-that's by design

Two thoughts: yes, malapportionment is unconstitutional, but that applies to state and local government. States elect the president, not voters. And as for the Senate, as Steven noted above, without the great compromise, there would have been no constitution.

democracy has become a fetish. if some democracy is good, the thinking goes, more is better. But that's not always true, and in any case, the point of an organic charter of government is good government. Direct democracy may further that goal, or it may r e t ard it. It just depends. But democracy for the sake of democracy is not now and has never been the point.

George K

The fear of the Founders was that democracy would lead to political power for those with no wealth, what we would call stakeholders today, therefore with no real interest in making a success of things. That superseded all the other things driving compromises in the Constitution, including slavery and the industrial/agricultural and big state/small state divides.

I think the real problem with direct democracy is that it can lead to mob rule, or simply bad laws. Look no further than California's referendum system for the latter.

Steven

Steyer's ads all over YouTube promising a "national referendum." Never says on what, though....

fishingcomic

@Steven said:

@fishingcomic said:
No it is not enough.

Why should you have a bigger seat at the table than the most populous states?

You still get the same number of Senators as California, is that not enough?

Given that this was one of the major compromises to get the Constitution ratified, should we allow less populous states to secede?

A deal's a deal, no?

Fine by me. Wait I think this means we have to keep Texas, so no.

fishingcomic

@Steven said:
Steyer's ads all over YouTube promising a "national referendum." Never says on what, though....

That is what we need another know nothing billionaire with a God complex.

fishingcomic

@sherb said:
It’s sort of amusing to hear him say the EC would be unconstitutional if it wasn’t in the constitution, but I take his point about malapportionment. That’s what he’s really saying, that “one man, one vote” means the electoral college is an undemocratic system. And in a sense, he's right-that's by design
Two thoughts: yes, malapportionment is unconstitutional, but that applies to state and local government. States elect the president, not voters. And as for the Senate, as Steven noted above, without the great compromise, there would have been no constitution.
democracy has become a fetish. if some democracy is good, the thinking goes, more is better. But that's not always true, and in any case, the point of an organic charter of government is good government. Direct democracy may further that goal, or it may r e t ard it. It just depends. But democracy for the sake of democracy is not now and has never been the point.

So the conservative position is less democracy?

BTW eliminating the EC would not be direct democracy. We would still be electing representatives that would be making all the decisions and there would still be restraints on what the government could and could not do. Not that this current president recognizes that.

fishingcomic

@fishingcomic said:

@sherb said:
It’s sort of amusing to hear him say the EC would be unconstitutional if it wasn’t in the constitution, but I take his point about malapportionment. That’s what he’s really saying, that “one man, one vote” means the electoral college is an undemocratic system. And in a sense, he's right-that's by design
Two thoughts: yes, malapportionment is unconstitutional, but that applies to state and local government. States elect the president, not voters. And as for the Senate, as Steven noted above, without the great compromise, there would have been no constitution.
democracy has become a fetish. if some democracy is good, the thinking goes, more is better. But that's not always true, and in any case, the point of an organic charter of government is good government. Direct democracy may further that goal, or it may r e t ard it. It just depends. But democracy for the sake of democracy is not now and has never been the point.

So the conservative position is less democracy?

I am okay with the Senate as it is composed. However the currently EC, takes too much power from the people and grants too much power to less populated states.