• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Federalist Papers by ‘Publius’ (1788)

cabse5 said:
I prefer to keep every state and district in the US motivated in presidential elections and not just the ones with the highest populations where the political ideology is much different than in other states or districts. .
Click to expand...

And I prefer that vote be purely popular in nature. One person, one vote - and no "Electoral Collage" to mess up that fundamental principle of any real democracy ...
 
haymarket said:
Why should a voter in Montana or Wyoming have three to four times the electoral power behind their vote as other citizens? That violates the principle of one person/one vote with no person having any more power than any other citizen.
Click to expand...

Question well put on this forum.

And most responses are the usual inanities about "not changing something that has worked for centuries".

But it HASN'T WORKED in five elections when the popular-vote winner did not win - two of which in the past two decades - when the will of the people was shamefully disrespected and electoral fairness compromised.

I keep repeating the same factual evidence: No developed nation on earth - except the US - employs such an unfair voting system as the Electoral College.

Ask yourself, Why? There is no valid answer ...
 
Last edited:
Lafayette said:
And I prefer that vote be purely popular in nature. One person, one vote - and no "Electoral Collage" to mess up that fundamental principle of any real democracy ...
Click to expand...

Democracy happens in Congress, not in the White House.

If you're worried about "democracy," you should be arguing for Congress to be the most powerful branch, and the President to be an administrator with so little power that it hardly matters how he's selected, or even who he is.

If you buy into the idea that the President is somehow presiding over "the People," instead of just administrator carrying out the instructions of Congress, then you've lost all track of "democracy."
 
Lafayette said:
Question well put on this forum.

And most responses are the usual inanities about "not changing something that has worked for centuries".

But it HASN'T WORKED in five elections when the popular-vote winner did not win - two of which in the past two decades - when the will of the people was shamefully disrespected and electoral fairness compromised.

I keep repeating the same factual evidence: No developed nation on earth - except the US - employs such an unfair voting system as the Electoral College.

Ask yourself, Why? There is no valid answer ...
Click to expand...

I think the WHY is clear: we have a system left over from the 1700's when the elites wanted to preserve their final word under the illusion of wisdom and experience that the masses did not have nor could they be trusted with. Over the centuries, things have changed in terms of the nation and the populace and the EC has not been changed because a constitutional amendment would require the side that perceives a political advantage - the Republicans - to willingly give up that advantage and they are loath to do so.

That is why.

When the Republicans find themselves on the losing end of the EC after winning the popular vote - then and only then will they be open to getting rid of the EC.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
The comparison is apt as a sporting event is decided by who scores the most points. In elections the points are votes.

Are you really asking me to explain to you how the President of the USA would impact the people of the USA by his policies and decisions? I would think such knowledge is fairly basic.
Click to expand...

There is nothing remotely relevant in how the President of the United States is elected, versus your analogy of a sporting event.

I wouldn't ask you to explain anything to anyone, given the extreme partisanship you apply to everything. Objectivity has no home in how you view society and politics.
 
ocean515 said:
There is nothing remotely relevant in how the President of the United States is elected, versus your analogy of a sporting event.

I wouldn't ask you to explain anything to anyone, given the extreme partisanship you apply to everything. Objectivity has no home in how you view society and politics.
Click to expand...

The comparison I made between the way games are won in sports and the way offices are won in politics is both fitting and apt as a sporting event is decided by who scores the most points. In elections the points are votes.
 
haymarket said:
The comparison I made between the way games are won in sports and the way offices are won in politics is both fitting and apt as a sporting event is decided by who scores the most points. In elections the points are votes.
Click to expand...

Presidents are not elected by popular vote. There is a reason for that, which some lack the intelligence or honor to accept.
 
ocean515 said:
Presidents are not elected by popular vote. There is a reason for that, which some lack the intelligence or honor to accept.
Click to expand...

And who in hell discussing the issue here does not know that news bulletin that you seem to feel is some national secret? Gimme a break already with you sum condescending insults that you do not have the guts to simply come out and state so you have to do it in this silly manner. Sad. Very very sad.
 
haymarket said:
And who in hell discussing the issue here does not know that news bulletin that you seem to feel is some national secret? Gimme a break already with you sum condescending insults that you do not have the guts to simply come out and state so you have to do it in this silly manner. Sad. Very very sad.
Click to expand...

Calm down haymarket.
 
haymarket said:
If you have any - go tell your own children what to do and leave me out of your orders.
Click to expand...

I have children and grandchildren haymarket. I wasn't ordering you to do anything.

Just suggesting you calm down, knowing that when you start misspelling and using words like "condescending" and phrases like "do not have the guts", a gasket is about to fail.
 
ocean515 said:
I have children and grandchildren haymarket. I wasn't ordering you to do anything.

Just suggesting you calm down, knowing that when you start misspelling and using words like "condescending" and phrases like "do not have the guts", a gasket is about to fail.
Click to expand...

The failure is all yours. And stop telling me what to do as its horribly condescending and your advice was never asked for nor wanted.

Try speaking to the points I made about the Electoral College and our nation.
 
haymarket said:
The failure is all yours. And stop telling me what to do as its horribly condescending and your advice was never asked for nor wanted.

Try speaking to the points I made about the Electoral College and our nation.
Click to expand...

Calm down haymarket.

I have been "speaking" to the points you have been attempting to make about the Electoral College and our Nation.

The fact you can't see that is another reminder of your need to take some advice.
 
ocean515 said:
Calm down haymarket.

I have been "speaking" to the points you have been attempting to make about the Electoral College and our Nation.

The fact you can't see that is another reminder of your need to take some advice.
Click to expand...

Your latest several posts have all been personal. Stop it and get back on topic.
 
Lafayette said:
From the Guardian:
The 100 best nonfiction books: No 81 - The Federalist Papers by ‘Publius’ - 1788

Excerpt -


In the present public "debate", it seems that we have forgot the reasons why - subsequent to the defeat of the British monarchy - the states had some difficulty in agreeing to combine into one nation under a central government. It was particularly the southern-states who were preoccupied with their lack of population vis-a-vis the north. Which, ipso facto, gave them less political power in which to maneuver.

The only way to appease them was to "manipulate" the popular-vote by means of the Electoral College, which lead to this historical fact: Five times in the history of the United States a democratic popular-vote was overturned by the Electoral College.

This fact alone is a travesty of democratic rule!

For true democracy to reign in our republic of states, we must "grow up" to the fact that ONLY THE POPULAR VOTE decides the presidency. Just like it decides elections to the Legislature and all public offices within the states ...

NB: And the fact that it will be difficult to overturn the 12th Amendment to bring Truly Complete Democracy to America is simply a "given", and not a reason not to do so. We are simply correcting an historical mistake that is an obstacle to true democracy.
Click to expand...

America was never about democracy or equality for all. The founder's vision was only affluent white male property holders got the vote and the senate was appointed by the aristocracy.
 
Fenton Lum said:
America was never about democracy or equality for all. The founder's vision was only affluent white male property holders got the vote and the senate was appointed by the aristocracy.
Click to expand...

Rubbish. The original ideas were all over the place, at first. But the common notion of ridding ourselves of the British monarch was paramount.

What happened in the US was largely dictated by what was happening in Europe. And particularly between France and England ...

In Paris, and still open to this day, is the restaurant "La Procope", where Benjamin Franklin, John Paul Jones and Thomas Jefferson met with the French "revolutionaries" (who were plotting the overthrow of the French king) in the name of "democracie" (in French) in 1776 and frequently their after. (Monticello was first seen by Jefferson in a house he saw here in France during a visit around the country.)

The seeds for our own democracy were planted there, in that restaurant, and brought to the US where they blossomed into our Constitution ...
 
Last edited:
And Lafayette, God rest his soul, lays in the Picpus cemetery in Paris; which is the only place in France where the American flag flies every day (and night) over his tomb.
220px-S%C3%A9pulture_la_Fayette.jpg
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
When the Republicans find themselves on the losing end of the EC after winning the popular vote - then and only then will they be open to getting rid of the EC.
Click to expand...

So far, so good - and that's more than two centuries that the aberrancy has existed.

There is a fundamental defect to the mechanism. When will the American people understand that the imperfection of the voting system UNIQUELY OF THE PRESIDENCY results in an illegitimate PotUS.

And why cannot that be argued before the Supreme Court? Because the Supreme Court has no idea whatsoever of the meaning of the words "legitimate democracy"?

Wouldn't surprise me ...

PS: Yes, I know that the Supremes cannot touch the Constitution. It is sacrosanct - errors and all!
 
Harshaw said:
Democracy happens in Congress, not in the White House.

If you're worried about "democracy," you should be arguing for Congress to be the most powerful branch, and the President to be an administrator with so little power that it hardly matters how he's selected, or even who he is.

If you buy into the idea that the President is somehow presiding over "the People," instead of just administrator carrying out the instructions of Congress, then you've lost all track of "democracy."
Click to expand...

And you need to read a bit about the history of democracy, and why it took so very long to arrive at the idea that there MUST BE a balance of power amongst the three organs of governance - the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary.

Think of our democracy in terms of "governance" - because all three elements are unified. It's not about individual personalities and certainly not about this Donald Dork of a PotUS.

He is a fluke of history ...
 
Last edited:
Lafayette said:
And you need to read a bit about the history of democracy, and why it took so very long to arrive at the idea that there MUST BE a balance of power amongst the three organs of governance - the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary.

Think of our democracy in terms of "governance" - because all three elements are unified. It's no about individual personalities and certainly not about this Donald Dork of a PotUS.

He is a fluke of history ...
Click to expand...

This is nuttery. Nothing I said speaks against these ideas, and nothing I said referenced Trump.

It does indicate, though, that Trump pervades your thinking here, and you proceed from that, not any actual principle.
 
cabse5 said:
If we go with a strict democratic vote winning the presidential election, there will surely be cries of foul or threats to form another union.
Click to expand...

How? This is NOT a football game, where referees can get a call wrong, and the crowd roars its disapproval.

It's about the fundamentals behind the word "democracy". Which is why so many on this board want to use INSTEAD the word "republic". Republic and democracy are constituent appellations of our system of governance. That is, they go together.

Only fools can believe there is a fundamental difference between "republic" and "democracy", which is why the unfairness of the Electoral College is "acceptable".

It is NOT acceptable. Never has been, never will be - only the popular-vote matters for the election of the Head of State in almost all countries on earth EXCEPT THE UNITED STATES ...
 
Lafayette said:
So far, so good - and that's more than two centuries that the aberrancy has existed.

There is a fundamental defect to the mechanism. When will the American people understand that the imperfection of the voting system UNIQUELY OF THE PRESIDENCY results in an illegitimate PotUS.

And why cannot that be argued before the Supreme Court? Because the Supreme Court has no idea whatsoever of the meaning of the words "legitimate democracy"?

Wouldn't surprise me ...

PS: Yes, I know that the Supremes cannot touch the Constitution. It is sacrosanct - errors and all!
Click to expand...

The point you make is the central one. The very mechanism which makes the President legal can also make him illegitimate. The reason of course is that the choice of the American people is not always the choice of the Electoral College and that makes him illegitimate in the eyes of many who value a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

With Trump you have the added bonus of the Comey interference over the last two weeks of the campaign at a time when 10 to 15 million people cast t heir votes and the Russian interference on behalf of Trump - which is what Hamilton warned us about in Federalist 68 but which the electors ignored and took no action upon. So much for how the EC is suppose to function to protect us from the creature of a foreign adversary.

All that results in perhaps the most clear cut case of an elected president being clearly illegitimate in our nations history. Only the corrupt bargain which elected Hayes comes close.
 
WE, THE SHEEPLE

Fenton Lum said:
America was never about democracy or equality for all. The founder's vision was only affluent white male property holders got the vote and the senate was appointed by the aristocracy.
Click to expand...

Wrong, and dead wrong. Yet another one who has never taken a Civics course.

Equality is perhaps a new idea on the American scene. It is at the heart of the EU, which first happened upon the idea because Europe had to reconstitute itself subsequent to the destruction of WW2.

Whereas the US kept harping about the unacceptability of Communism. Which was correct, given that a market-economy (as exists in the US) cannot have the ownership of the means of production reside in the hands of the government. (Well not, totally - but governments have proven to be very bad a managing businesses.)

A Social Democracy accepts both capitalism (which is only the use of capital as a common currency and means little else) and the notion of private enterprise. "Freedom" is not intrinsically "capitalist" in nature.

However, what Social Democracy cares most about is the economic fairness of the market-economy. That is, that its fruits self-distribute in a manner that does NOT show preference for one class or another.

Due to upper-income taxation (as well as inheritance), we have a monstrous inequality/unfairness of Wealth Accumulation that favors/promotes an upper-class of individuals. Which uses its ill-got wealth to maintain the status-quo at elections.

And that gambit works - because we, the sheeple, allow it continue ... !
 
Last edited:
Lafayette said:
How? This is NOT a football game, where referees can get a call wrong, and the crowd roars its disapproval.

It's about the fundamentals behind the word "democracy". Which is why so many on this board want to use INSTEAD the word "republic". Republic and democracy are constituent appellations of our system of governance. That is, they go together.

Only fools can believe there is a fundamental difference between "republic" and "democracy", which is why the unfairness of the Electoral College is "acceptable".

It is NOT acceptable. Never has been, never will be - only the popular-vote matters for the election of the Head of State in almost all countries on earth EXCEPT THE UNITED STATES ...
Click to expand...

Maybe thats one of the reasons the USA is the most free and successful country in the world. We make it difficult for mob rule as we do for dictatorial rule. Our form of govt was designed around having many checks and balances, decentralized and separated powers and giving extra weight to minorities. It works, and has worked for over 200 years. While much of the rest of the world has had coups, revolutions, invasions, civil wars, and anarchy. If I remember correct, the USA is currently the longest consistent form of govt of all modern countries.

Furthermore, "only the popular-vote matters for the election of the Head of State in almost all countries on earth EXCEPT THE UNITED STATES " is wrong or at least cheating. A good number of countries in the world are not even democracies (about 70). Of the 125 democracies, only half of the executives are directly elected by the people. In the rest, some are chosen by the legislature, some by a mix of legislature and regional reps. Some dont have executives, and instead are run by the legislatures.

So this idea that the rest of the world is somehow standardized on the best method is false.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom