• 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)

haymarket said:
People in several states are taking the initiative to get rid of gerrymandering themselves and going around the self serving politicians.
Click to expand...

Yes, they will. Because manipulating the popular-vote on a statewide basis helps to keep the Electoral College since they are first-in-power at both branches of elected governance - the Executive and the Legislative.

haymarket said:
As for the EC, until the Republicans win the popular vote and lose the electoral vote, they will fight to the death to keep what they see as a political advantage and never to get rid of the EC.
Click to expand...

Yes, clearly. Manipulating the population, however, has become child's play. We Yanks seem attached to the Boob Tube with an umbilical-chord. Companies manipulate us to buy their products by some very addle-headed advertizing.

Why should not the same manipulation be possible for political campaigns?

In fact, in France (and unlike the US), the amount of money that anyone (public or private) can give to a candidate is very strictly capped and controlled. Candidates, however, also get free air-time that is strictly controlled. Which is a damn fine idea ...
 
Lafayette said:
Yes, they will. Because manipulating the popular-vote on a statewide basis helps to keep the Electoral College since they are first-in-power at both branches of elected governance - the Executive and the Legislative.



Yes, clearly. Manipulating the population, however, has become child's play. We Yanks seem attached to the Boob Tube with an umbilical-chord. Companies manipulate us to buy their products by some very addle-headed advertizing.

Why should not the same manipulation be possible for political campaigns?

In fact, in France (and unlike the US), the amount of money that anyone (public or private) can give to a candidate is very strictly capped and controlled. Candidates, however, also get free air-time that is strictly controlled. Which is a damn fine idea ...
Click to expand...

Right now in my home state of Michigan, we have kicked off a petition drive to take away the power of redistricting from the state legislature. And early response after just a few weeks has been very very good.
 
NOT MISSION IMPOSSIBLE

code1211 said:
A national referendum to amend the Constitution?

Were you born clueless or have you just lost all of your clues along the way?
Click to expand...

(Just love your sarcastic manner ...! ;^)

Some VERY contentious wrongs in your rebuttal - but at least some though is there. Here below are a few "clues" nonetheless for you to consider.

First all, yes, it takes a constitutional amendment to undo a constitutional amendment. But a popular-vote to undo the Amendment 12 would indicate to the those in both Chambers of Congress of the will of Americans. Let's not forget, the Constitution was never ever voted into place by means of the-will-of-those-it-governed.

The governed decide who are their leaders sent to Congress. The governed decide who unseats them. Which is how the governed can change the constitution by means of an amendments.

So, if Amendment 12 becomes a National Issue, then the constituency of Congress will begin to change at the next Congressional election. Such is not the case nowadays. Barely half of Americans see (as I do) how unfit the Electoral College is in any Real Democracy:
electoral_college_chart-final-1.jpg


As you can see, overtime the Electoral College has never had a clear majority support of the American people. (This sounding was made by Gallup of only about 1200 Americans.)

Nonetheless, the process for repealing any Constitutional Amendment is laid out rather succinctly and clearly here:

STEP 1: PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT
Either Congress or the states can propose an amendment to the Constitution.

Both houses of Congress must propose the amendment with a two-thirds vote. This is how all current amendments have been offered.
Two-thirds of the state legislatures must call on Congress to hold a constitutional convention.

STEP 2. RATIFYING AN AMENDMENT
Regardless of how the amendment is proposed, it must be ratified by the States.

Three-fourths of the state legislatures must approve of the amendment proposed by Congress, or
Three-fourths of the states must approve the amendment via ratifying conventions. This method has only been used once, to repeal Prohibition with the 21st Amendment.
Is there a timeline for ratification? The U.S. Supreme Court has held that ratification must happen within "some reasonable time after the proposal." Since the 18th Amendment was ratifed, Congress has set a term of seven years for ratification.

Only 33 amendments have received a two-thirds vote from both Houses of Congress. Of those, only 27 have been ratified by the States. Perhaps the most visible failure is the Equal Rights Amendment.

Article 5 of the Constitution reads:

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
Click to expand...

So, no, it is is not Mission Impossible, just not (today) Mission Probable.

Today ...
 
haymarket said:
Right now in my home state of Michigan, we have kicked off a petition drive to take away the power of redistricting from the state legislature. And early response after just a few weeks has been very very good.
Click to expand...

Good on y'all ... !
 
code1211 said:
All of what you posted is the drivel of fantasy.

The real world and your perception of the real world are not connected to each other in any way.

This will not end well for you.

However, if you clap your hands and really, I mean really, believe, Tinkerbell will not die.
Click to expand...

Brilliant rebuttal! Full of factual evidence to support your arguments!!!

Moving right along ...
 
Surrealistik said:
I'd say the nigh unlimited proliferation of private money in public office is far more deleterious to US democracy.
Click to expand...

Of course it is. But that is because there is no limit!

Make it illegal to give a megabuck to your favorite candidate and you have enormous influence on how s/he votes! Why did banning cigarettes take so long and finally wake-up some people about its deleterious effects?

But only because too many people died from cancer - and the word got around. What politician would have dared to go up against the Tobacco Companies ... ?
 
Lafayette said:
NOT MISSION IMPOSSIBLE



(Just love your sarcastic manner ...! ;^)

Some VERY contentious wrongs in your rebuttal - but at least some though is there. Here below are a few "clues" nonetheless for you to consider.

First all, yes, it takes a constitutional amendment to undo a constitutional amendment. But a popular-vote to undo the Amendment 12 would indicate to the those in both Chambers of Congress of the will of Americans. Let's not forget, the Constitution was never ever voted into place by means of the-will-of-those-it-governed.

The governed decide who are their leaders sent to Congress. The governed decide who unseats them. Which is how the governed can change the constitution by means of an amendments.

So, if Amendment 12 becomes a National Issue, then the constituency of Congress will begin to change at the next Congressional election. Such is not the case nowadays. Barely half of Americans see (as I do) how unfit the Electoral College is in any Real Democracy:
electoral_college_chart-final-1.jpg


As you can see, overtime the Electoral College has never had a clear majority support of the American people. (This sounding was made by Gallup of only about 1200 Americans.)

Nonetheless, the process for repealing any Constitutional Amendment is laid out rather succinctly and clearly here:



So, no, it is is not Mission Impossible, just not (today) Mission Probable.

Today ...
Click to expand...

I am glad that you are now investigating the actual real world as it applies to your goals.

The Constitution was never voted into place?

You need to study history more closely.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timel...atification_of_the_United_States_Constitution
 
Lafayette said:
Didn't say that. (Learn how to quote a subject and put it into your reply - if you want people to respond.)

How long you been reading English? Two days ... ?
Click to expand...

From the post to which I responded and a DIRECT QUOTE FROM YOU:

"Let's not forget, the Constitution was never ever voted into place by means of the-will-of-those-it-governed."

That is a wildly inaccurate statement. I assumed it rose from ignorance. If it did not rise from ignorance, then it is a bold faced lie. I chose to believe the less damning.

Which is it?
 
code1211 said:
I am glad that you are now investigating the actual real world as it applies to your goals.

The Constitution was never voted into place?

You need to study history more closely.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timel...atification_of_the_United_States_Constitution
Click to expand...

The Constitution has never been voted upon by national plebiscite (popularly voted). It was written by a group of intelligent men and voted into place by state-representatives who had negotiated initially that states elect the PotUS. This was officialised in Amendment 12.

Given the times, perhaps that was necessary. Even in 1812, nobody would canvas the United States (of 13 colonies) in a popular-vote. But, we are no longer in the 19th century, but the 21st.

So, it is time we consecrated presidents by means of the popular vote - and uniquely the popular vote. Which is the only bonafide way of electing the Executive Officer mandated by the people s/he governs ...
 
code1211 said:
When the ignorant condemn based on their ignorance, it's really vary amusing. Sometimes it's also dangerous.

How can you post the definition of a Republic and STILL not get it? Didn't you read your own post?

I'll type slowly so you might understand: THE MEMBERS OF OUR FEDERAL REPUBLIC ARE THE VARIOUS STATES.

That will help if you can read.
Click to expand...

So you can't even read a dictionary, huh? That's just sad.

One more time....

FEDERAL is the union of states under one central government....and the REPUBLIC is the system of government guaranteed to each state by the Constitution.
 
haymarket said:
Right now in my home state of Michigan, we have kicked off a petition drive to take away the power of redistricting from the state legislature. And early response after just a few weeks has been very very good.
Click to expand...

A waste of time-- Article 1 Section 4 grants that power only to the state legislature, unless Congress permits otherwise.
 
Lafayette said:
Yes, they will. Because manipulating the popular-vote on a statewide basis helps to keep the Electoral College since they are first-in-power at both branches of elected governance - the Executive and the Legislative.



Yes, clearly. Manipulating the population, however, has become child's play. We Yanks seem attached to the Boob Tube with an umbilical-chord. Companies manipulate us to buy their products by some very addle-headed advertizing.

Why should not the same manipulation be possible for political campaigns?

In fact, in France (and unlike the US), the amount of money that anyone (public or private) can give to a candidate is very strictly capped and controlled. Candidates, however, also get free air-time that is strictly controlled. Which is a damn fine idea ...
Click to expand...

Not really. All that does it leads to a situation where the government is controlling the activities of its critics.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Not really. All that does it leads to a situation where the government is controlling the activities of its critics.
Click to expand...

The government is elected by the people in the US. (In fact, not all the people, because most Americans are too lazy to get out to vote. See the comparative voter-chart by country here. Scroll down to the bottom to find the US!)

Take a course in Civics, will you ... !?!
 
Last edited:
Lafayette said:
The government is elected by the people in the US. (In fact, not all the people, because most Americans are too lazy to get out to vote. See the comparative voter-chart by country here. Scroll down to the bottom to find the US!)

Take a course in Civics, will you ... !?!
Click to expand...

A long list of countries, the vast majority, of which do not directly elect their head of government. Was that the point that you were trying to make? The topic is the Electoral College and how the President of the US is determined, not voting rates which could always be better, but I see that some on of the countries have compulsory voting. In a free country, there is also the freedom to not vote. Or would you prefer that we all be like Greece?

As for the post before, try not being so ageist, hardly anyone watches the boob tube anymore and that umbilical-chord [sic] is happening at a rate that an obstetrician would be envious.
 
Lafayette said:
The government is elected by the people in the US. (In fact, not all the people, because most Americans are too lazy to get out to vote. See the comparative voter-chart by country here. Scroll down to the bottom to find the US!)

Take a course in Civics, will you ... !?!
Click to expand...

The government of North Korea is also elected by the people as well. I believe they had a 100% turnout to vote in Kim a few years back, a turnout rate which i suspect is greater than even France's.

My comment was that when government restricts the amount of airtime candidates, including opposition candidates, have on the air, the government is restricting the amount of criticism of itself. That is not a damm fine idea.
 
Athanasius68 said:
The courts haven't ruled apparently. The page cited electoral success. It seems however to suggest substance failure.
Click to expand...

I have absolutely not the slightest idea what you are talking about. The courts have not ruled on what exactly? What case do they need to rule on.

And you gibe about substance failure sounds like a joint that failed to light. Be more specific.... if you dare.
 
Athanasius68 said:
The government of North Korea is also elected by the people as well. I believe they had a 100% turnout to vote in Kim a few years back, a turnout rate which i suspect is greater than even France's.

My comment was that when government restricts the amount of airtime candidates, including opposition candidates, have on the air, the government is restricting the amount of criticism of itself. That is not a damm fine idea.
Click to expand...

Freedom of speech is not only "on the air". Frankly, I prefere the French system by which political "publicity" is restricted to 20 minutes on any given day.

French TV has a lot of "talk shows", and the candidates are routinely invited to debate shows, so there is a general airing of ideas. This is how Macron, a relative political unknown to the "establishment" was able to win. Trump did the same thing.

The differences between the two countries are too stark to even mention here. (There is a Communist Party in France. Oh mah gawd!)

What distiguishes France most from America is its difference in Income Disparity. France has a Gini Index of 31 and for the US it is around 41 - so the US is far less equitable in terms of Income Distribution.

And I am not the only Yank who lives in France who will tell you that given the tradeoff between taxation and government-funded services (principle importance Nearly Free National Health System, as well as Post-secondary Education up to the highest level) one is better off in France.

We are somewhere around 125,000 who live here. I never hear stories about "going back" - except those who are on assignment. Yes, younger families do go back because job opportunities for Yanks who do not speak French are limited.

Still, where's there's the will there's a way ...
 
Last edited:
AliHajiSheik said:
A long list of countries, the vast majority, of which do not directly elect their head of government.
Click to expand...

You are showing your political ignorance here.

Most European countries elect a Prime Minister who happens to be head of the majority party in the Legislature. Ipso Facto, the head of government in all of Europe (EU plus a few outlyers) is elected BY A POPULAR VOTE ... !

And the title of "president" in Europe is purely nominal in nature, the person having the sole political responsibility of inviting the winner of the majority-party in the Legislature to form a government ...
 
Lafayette said:
You are showing your political ignorance here.

Most European countries elect a Prime Minister who happens to be head of the majority party in the Legislature. Ipso Facto, the head of government in all of Europe (EU plus a few outlyers) is elected BY A POPULAR VOTE ... !

And the title of "president" in Europe is purely nominal in nature, the person having the sole political responsibility of inviting the winner of the majority-party in the Legislature to form a government ...
Click to expand...

More changing the goal posts and incivility. Please try to focus. The topic that you started this thread with is the Electoral College which is the indirect vote for President of the US. I pointed out that most of the countries you listed for an irrelevant tangent contained countries where the head of government was also determined by indirect vote--I would argue even more of an indirect vote. You live in a country where the Prime Minister, the head of government, is elected by popular vote--a vote of 1 person. Please stay on the original topic, your tangents are annoying compounded by them usually being wrong.
 
haymarket said:
I have absolutely not the slightest idea what you are talking about. The courts have not ruled on what exactly? What case do they need to rule on.

And you gibe about substance failure sounds like a joint that failed to light. Be more specific.... if you dare.
Click to expand...

As per Wikipedia... There has been no court challenge. Which is neither here nor there.
However, the article seems to indicate it is not achieving its objectives.
 
Lafayette said:
Freedom of speech is not only "on the air". Frankly, I prefere the French system by which political "publicity" is restricted to 20 minutes on any given day.

French TV has a lot of "talk shows", and the candidates are routinely invited to debate shows, so there is a general airing of ideas. This is how Macron, a relative political unknown to the "establishment" was able to win. Trump did the same thing.

The differences between the two countries are too stark to even mention here. (There is a Communist Party in France. Oh mah gawd!)

What distiguishes France most from America is its difference in Income Disparity. France has a Gini Index of 31 and for the US it is around 41 - so the US is far less equitable in terms of Income Distribution.

And I am not the only Yank who lives in France who will tell you that given the tradeoff between taxation and government-funded services (principle importance Nearly Free National Health System, as well as Post-secondary Education up to the highest level) one is better off in France.

We are somewhere around 125,000 who live here. I never hear stories about "going back" - except those who are on assignment. Yes, younger families do go back because job opportunities for Yanks who do not speak French are limited.

Still, where's there's the will there's a way ...
Click to expand...

Well, income disparity isn't perhaps the only distinction between the two countries. As you point out, the government off France sets up controls as to the degree somebody is allowed to criticize it.
 
Athanasius68 said:
As per Wikipedia... There has been no court challenge. Which is neither here nor there.
However, the article seems to indicate it is not achieving its objectives.
Click to expand...

Laws sometimes need to be fine tuned as they play out in real time and in real situations. And in the absence of a court challenge and court ruling against it, this, like all laws, stands as the law of the land.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom