Home The Lodge

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

fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior MemberPosts: 26,558 Senior Member
'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan

Replies

  • sherbsherb Senior Member Posts: 6,413 Senior Member

    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.“

  • MikeAMikeA Senior Member Posts: 6,228 Senior Member

    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.

  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 26,558 Senior Member
    edited August 2019 #5

    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?

    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • creekyguycreekyguy Posts: 361 Senior Member
    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.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 26,558 Senior Member

    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.

    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • Shawn C.Shawn C. Senior Member Posts: 7,027 Senior Member

    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.

  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 26,558 Senior Member

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

    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • BufordBuford Senior Member Posts: 3,119 Senior Member

    @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.

    Just look at the flowers Lizzie just look at the flowers.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 26,558 Senior Member

    No eliminate the electoral college and both our votes matter.

    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • StevenSteven Senior Member Posts: 5,090 Senior Member

    @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?

  • sherbsherb Senior Member Posts: 6,413 Senior Member
    edited September 2019 #13

    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 KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 11,665 Senior Member

    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.

    The GOP big tent now is the size of a pup tent, its floor splattered with guano.
  • StevenSteven Senior Member Posts: 5,090 Senior Member

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

  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 26,558 Senior Member

    @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.

    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 26,558 Senior Member

    @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.

    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 26,558 Senior Member
    edited September 2019 #18

    @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.

    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 26,558 Senior Member

    @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.

    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Fly Fisherman stories delivered right to your inbox.

Advertisement