• 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)

Lafayette

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
9,594
Reaction score
2,072
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From the Guardian:
The 100 best nonfiction books: No 81 - The Federalist Papers by ‘Publius’ - 1788

Excerpt -
Addressing a debate that reverberates to the present day, Hamilton and Madison made a brilliant and powerful case for “the UNION”. In essay no 9 (the words are Hamilton’s) we see their breadth of wisdom and learning: “It is impossible to read the history of the petty republics of Greece and Italy without feeling sensations of horror and disgust at the distractions with which they were continually agitated, and at the rapid successions of revolutions by which they were kept in a state of perpetual vibration between the extremes of tyranny and anarchy.”

To this, Jay added his own voice, in another powerful essay: “Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government; and it is equally undeniable that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights, in order to vest it with requisite powers.”

In such a situation, said Jay, Americans had to ask themselves the one question that would eventually morph into the debate about states’ rights: “Whether it would conduce more to the interests of the people that they should be one nation, under one federal government, than that they should divide themselves into separate confederacies…”

Who knows how many Americans ever fully engaged with the complex and enthralling ideas embodied in this remarkable, and strangely passionate, text? At the time, these essays were avidly consumed by voters and readers in New York, to whom they were addressed. Hamilton seems to have encouraged the reprinting of his work in newspapers outside New York State and in several other states where the ratification debate was raging.

In reality, they appeared irregularly outside New York, and in other parts of the country, where they were often overshadowed by local writers addressing local issues, a phenomenon that persists. In the long run, what was really influential, as many have pointed out, was the rhetorical dignity and decorum expressed in these polemical pages. “Publius” was learned, wise, tolerant and, above all, rational. He was a figure of the Enlightenment who believed in secular society and secular government. And perhaps he wasn’t wrong.

The US constitution is still going strong, in some ways now more so than ever. Despite the ugliest rhetoric ever witnessed within the Union, America is not “broken”, though possibly not in the best of health. That it should draw any political breath at all, in the current circumstances, is due significantly to the writings of men such as Hamilton, Madison and Jay.

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.
 
From Time Magazine (2016) : The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists

Excerpt:
One Founding-era argument for the Electoral College stemmed from the fact that ordinary Americans across a vast continent would lack sufficient information to choose directly and intelligently among leading presidential candidates.

This objection rang true in the 1780s, when life was far more local. But the early emergence of national presidential parties rendered the objection obsolete by linking presidential candidates to slates of local candidates and national platforms, which explained to voters who stood for what.

Although the Philadelphia framers did not anticipate the rise of a system of national presidential parties, the 12th Amendment—proposed in 1803 and ratified a year later— was framed with such a party system in mind, in the aftermath of the election of 1800-01. In that election, two rudimentary presidential parties—Federalists led by John Adams and Republicans led by Thomas Jefferson—took shape and squared off.

Enter the 12th Amendment, which allowed each party to designate one candidate for president and a separate candidate for vice president. The amendment’s modifications of the electoral process transformed the Framers’ framework, enabling future presidential elections to be openly populist and partisan affairs featuring two competing tickets.

Standard civics-class accounts of the Electoral College rarely mention the real demon dooming direct national election in 1787 and 1803: slavery. [Who were counted but not allowed to vote!]

Thus, at the time the Twelfth Amendment tinkered with the Electoral College system rather than tossing it, the system’s pro-slavery bias was hardly a secret. Indeed, in the floor debate over the amendment in late 1803, Massachusetts Congressman Samuel Thatcher complained that “The representation of slaves adds thirteen members to this House in the present Congress, and eighteen Electors of President and Vice President at the next election.” But Thatcher’s complaint went unredressed. Once again, the North caved to the South by refusing to insist on direct national election.

This bit of history is unfortunate, but the Civil War and freeing the slaves (thus making them citizens and having the right to vote) did not change the unbalanced voting of the Electoral College, which looks like this:
populations-alone-dont-win-presidential-elections-electoral-votes-do-this-map-sizes-states-based-on-the-number-of-electoral-votes-its-similar-to-the-population-weighted-map-but-some-smaller-states-like-wyoming-and-vermont-are-somewhat-bigger-while-more-populous-states-like-california-and-texas-are-a-bit-smaller.jpg


It's high-time we changed it ...
 
This is the dumbest argument I've ever read for abolishing the Electoral College, especially considering that you didn't actually present one.
 
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.

It is fine to remind of the papers. They were a good read.

It is wrong, however, to believe that the "only way to appease them was to "manipulate" the popular-vote by means of the Electoral College". There are many mechanisms required for a democratic system, if it is not a purely theoretical society. That is one of the things one sees immediately, when one studies how democratic constitutions are constructed and how the various checks and balances work together in an integrated system of civic organization. I realize that that is a more complex argument, than the daily populist can bare, but to want to remove one element from a large and complex whole is not as easily argued, unless one wants to do mischief to the country.
 
This is the dumbest argument I've ever read for abolishing the Electoral College, especially considering that you didn't actually present one.

Imagine if the following scenario were the way sports operated.

Dad takes Junior to a basketball game and its the kids first actual live game. They live in Michigan and are watching the Pistons.

Here is the scoring for each quarter.

1st quarter: Lakers 24 - Pistons 23
2nd quarter Lakers 25 - Detroit 24
3rd quarter Lakers 31 - Detroit 29
4th quarter Pistons 36 - Lakers 21

Final score Pistons 112 - Lakers 101

As they leave the arena Junior is beaming from ear to ear since the home team won. Dad is not so happy nor are most of the exiting Detroit fans.

Junior: That was a great game Dad. I am glad Detroit won.
Dad: Well they did outscore the Lakers son, but we lost the game.
Junior: No Dad - we won 112 to 101. We scored the most points.
Dad: Well son, the league changed the rules to make sure every quarter was hard fought. They put in a system where the winner of each quarter gets one point and the one who scores the most points in the game gets an additional point. Since Los Angeles won three quarters they earned three points and Detroit who won only one quarter and the most points in the game got only two points. So the Lakers win three points to two.
Son: Thats stupid. Every kid knows that when you get the most points you win. Adults are really dumb.
Dad: Well son, did I ever tell you about the Electoral College?
 
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.

The problem is that the True Democracy you exhort is the true end of the Federal Republic.

You are asking that the country be divided immediately into at least two sub countries.

How in the world does the excerpt from the Federalist Papers support your thesis?
 
Imagine if the following scenario were the way sports operated.

Dad takes Junior to a basketball game and its the kids first actual live game. They live in Michigan and are watching the Pistons.

Here is the scoring for each quarter.

1st quarter: Lakers 24 - Pistons 23
2nd quarter Lakers 25 - Detroit 24
3rd quarter Lakers 31 - Detroit 29
4th quarter Pistons 36 - Lakers 21

Final score Pistons 112 - Lakers 101

As they leave the arena Junior is beaming from ear to ear since the home team won. Dad is not so happy nor are most of the exiting Detroit fans.

Junior: That was a great game Dad. I am glad Detroit won.
Dad: Well they did outscore the Lakers son, but we lost the game.
Junior: No Dad - we won 112 to 101. We scored the most points.
Dad: Well son, the league changed the rules to make sure every quarter was hard fought. They put in a system where the winner of each quarter gets one point and the one who scores the most points in the game gets an additional point. Since Los Angeles won three quarters they earned three points and Detroit who won only one quarter and the most points in the game got only two points. So the Lakers win three points to two.
Son: Thats stupid. Every kid knows that when you get the most points you win. Adults are really dumb.
Dad: Well son, did I ever tell you about the Electoral College?


Still struggling to accept the giant Hillary loss. Your silly basketball story means nothing. Absolutely nothing!
You just have to accept the fact and move on with your life. Trump won! Now repeat after me Trump won!
 
Still struggling to accept the giant Hillary loss. Your silly basketball story means nothing. Absolutely nothing!
You just have to accept the fact and move on with your life. Trump won! Now repeat after me Trump won!

Is there some disability which prevents you from discussing the issue on its merits and resorting to childish personal sniping?
 
Imagine if the following scenario were the way sports operated.

Dad takes Junior to a basketball game and its the kids first actual live game. They live in Michigan and are watching the Pistons.

Here is the scoring for each quarter.

1st quarter: Lakers 24 - Pistons 23
2nd quarter Lakers 25 - Detroit 24
3rd quarter Lakers 31 - Detroit 29
4th quarter Pistons 36 - Lakers 21

Final score Pistons 112 - Lakers 101

As they leave the arena Junior is beaming from ear to ear since the home team won. Dad is not so happy nor are most of the exiting Detroit fans.

Junior: That was a great game Dad. I am glad Detroit won.
Dad: Well they did outscore the Lakers son, but we lost the game.
Junior: No Dad - we won 112 to 101. We scored the most points.
Dad: Well son, the league changed the rules to make sure every quarter was hard fought. They put in a system where the winner of each quarter gets one point and the one who scores the most points in the game gets an additional point. Since Los Angeles won three quarters they earned three points and Detroit who won only one quarter and the most points in the game got only two points. So the Lakers win three points to two.
Son: Thats stupid. Every kid knows that when you get the most points you win. Adults are really dumb.
Dad: Well son, did I ever tell you about the Electoral College?

The intent of the Electoral College is to represent the Presidential preference of the various states, not the individual people.

The needs and goals of the people in Wyoming are vastly different than the needs and goals of the people of New York.

You would also put out of work the State level government employees. If you think the BMV works slowly now, just imagine it as run by the IRS.

To do what you seem to prefer will require a Constitutional Convention.

Federal - definition of federal by The Free Dictionary

<snip>
Fed·er·al (fĕd′ər-əl, fĕd′rəl)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or being a form of government in which a union of states recognizes the sovereignty of a central authority while retaining certain residual powers of government.
2. Of or constituting a form of government in which sovereign power is divided between a central authority and a number of constituent political units.
3. Of or relating to the central government of a federation as distinct from the governments of its member units.
4. Favorable to or advocating federation: The senator's federal leanings were well known.
5. Relating to or formed by a treaty or compact between constituent political units.
<snip>
 
Last edited:
The intent of the Electoral College is to represent the Presidential preference of the various states, not the individual people.

The needs and goals of the people in Wyoming are vastly different than the needs and goals of the people of New York.

To do what you seem to prefer will require a Constitutional Convention.

Federal - definition of federal by The Free Dictionary

<snip>
Fed·er·al (fĕd′ər-əl, fĕd′rəl)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or being a form of government in which a union of states recognizes the sovereignty of a central authority while retaining certain residual powers of government.
2. Of or constituting a form of government in which sovereign power is divided between a central authority and a number of constituent political units.
3. Of or relating to the central government of a federation as distinct from the governments of its member units.
4. Favorable to or advocating federation: The senator's federal leanings were well known.
5. Relating to or formed by a treaty or compact between constituent political units.
<snip>

It is NOT 1787 anymore. Once upon a time in a land that realistically no longer exists, people were born in one place, grew up in that same place, worked and lived in that same place, married and had kids in that same place, and then died in that same place. That was the general rule although there were exceptions. Lots and lots of people - most people actually - did not go more than 100 miles from the place they were born ever.

And those people identified with those places and called themselves Virginians or New Yorkers or Georgians or Pennsylvanians and their state was their identity. But a century went past and then another and now people are born in Michigan and move to Indiana where they go to school, and then go to college in Mississippi and take jobs over forty years in Texas and then Oregon and then Idaho and finally in Ohio. And they met somebody and fell in love with a person with a whole different history of their own. And if they are lucky they can retire in sunny Florida or Arizona. And their three kids were born in two different states and when thy got older they went to colleges in Massachusetts and Illinois and one even went to Michigan. And they married people with different histories as well.

So today we are no longer a Massachusetts man or a Virginian or an Oklahoman. Today we are Americans. We are one nation. We are one people. And the President is President for all regardless of the community or residence.

As I said, its not 1787 any longer and the mechanism that may have worked then is badly out of date.
 
The intent of the Electoral College is to represent the Presidential preference of the various states, not the individual people.

by the way - states are an artificial creation in law. There are no such things as states without the people that actually comprise them. State cannot have any interests without the interests of the actual people who constitute the state in the first place.

Remove the artificial entity of a state and you still have the people with their interests.
Remove the people from the states and you have no states and thus no interests.
 
The problem is that the True Democracy you exhort is the true end of the Federal Republic.

A true democracy is one in which the people directly are the government - picture New England town hall government. Obviously in a nation our size that is not even possible nor practical.

We have a republican form of government by constitutional mandate and a democratic republic would still be a republic. Getting rid of the EC does not change that.
 
by the way - states are an artificial creation in law. There are no such things as states without the people that actually comprise them. State cannot have any interests without the interests of the actual people who constitute the state in the first place.

Remove the artificial entity of a state and you still have the people with their interests.
Remove the people from the states and you have no states and thus no interests.

Argued like a true globalist.

However, "States" are not formed in a vacuum, they are formed by diverse groupings of people.

For example. Europe is arguably the locale of people with pale skin and bright colored eyes. One could argue this makes them all one in the same.

Yet this monochromal group ended up being divided into Germans, Greeks, Swedes, Scots, Irish, etc. Even under the EU they constantly disagree on local grounds.

In the far east we have China, a united land currently but once a land divided by States with differing languages both before and after the First Emperor. Even today most Chinese still speak local dialects and consider themselves Han, Manchu, Hui, and a dozen other ethnic groups while learning one "official language."

Human beings are "Tribal" and "Clannish," identifying with family first, then local affiliations, then state affiliations, and finally national prides. We are a mishmash of diverse belief systems, races, and opinions, not one mass conglomeration.

States are, to paraphrase your own statement, "groupings of people with similar interests." Thus you are actually arguing for their valid existence, and in fact providing your own refutation as to their value.

People in Iowa don't think the way people in New York do and vice-versa.

They need to feel properly represented in the central government or there will be a drive to secede and take care of their own affairs more locally.

The Congress, where the real power lies, is where our Founding Fathers provided democratic representation. The President was supposed to be a figure who was obligated in some way to all the people of the various States.

Hence, the electoral college which balances the Tyranny of the Majority in Congress with a "ruler" answerable to all the people.
 
It is NOT 1787 anymore. Once upon a time in a land that realistically no longer exists, people were born in one place, grew up in that same place, worked and lived in that same place, married and had kids in that same place, and then died in that same place. That was the general rule although there were exceptions. Lots and lots of people - most people actually - did not go more than 100 miles from the place they were born ever.

And those people identified with those places and called themselves Virginians or New Yorkers or Georgians or Pennsylvanians and their state was their identity. But a century went past and then another and now people are born in Michigan and move to Indiana where they go to school, and then go to college in Mississippi and take jobs over forty years in Texas and then Oregon and then Idaho and finally in Ohio. And they met somebody and fell in love with a person with a whole different history of their own. And if they are lucky they can retire in sunny Florida or Arizona. And their three kids were born in two different states and when thy got older they went to colleges in Massachusetts and Illinois and one even went to Michigan. And they married people with different histories as well.

So today we are no longer a Massachusetts man or a Virginian or an Oklahoman. Today we are Americans. We are one nation. We are one people. And the President is President for all regardless of the community or residence.

As I said, its not 1787 any longer and the mechanism that may have worked then is badly out of date.

I was born in Minnesota where I went to school and am still awaiting the successful completion of the rebuilding program for their football program begun in 1968.

However, If I desire to live in the hubbub of a large city or in the isolation of a mountain top, my desires for and demands of the local government would be vastly different.

In New York City, my feelings on the regulations guiding the installation of my septic system would depart greatly from my same feeling living in the Rocky Mountains. In one place it's needed and in the other, not so much.

The same is true of gun ownership, neighborhood watch groups or regulations governing the use of the creek running through my property.

Being able to count the votes is NOT the issue here.

People in different situations need and desire different things.

We might all be Americans, but that means that we are a group of groups. Each group is significant and needs representation.

You are endorsing what Hamilton referred to as "The Tyranny of the Majority".

Tyranny is tyranny. To the folks of the Blue States, Tyranny is more desired. To the folks of the Red States, it is less so.
 
by the way - states are an artificial creation in law. There are no such things as states without the people that actually comprise them. State cannot have any interests without the interests of the actual people who constitute the state in the first place.

Remove the artificial entity of a state and you still have the people with their interests.
Remove the people from the states and you have no states and thus no interests.

What are you endorsing in this?

Without states, either the Various states as defined in the Constitution or the Nation States as recognized world wide, there is anarchy.

People organize into units that allow the regulation of activity for protection of the weaker from the actions of the stronger.
 
Imagine if the following scenario were the way sports operated.

Dad takes Junior to a basketball game and its the kids first actual live game. They live in Michigan and are watching the Pistons.

Here is the scoring for each quarter.

1st quarter: Lakers 24 - Pistons 23
2nd quarter Lakers 25 - Detroit 24
3rd quarter Lakers 31 - Detroit 29
4th quarter Pistons 36 - Lakers 21

Final score Pistons 112 - Lakers 101

As they leave the arena Junior is beaming from ear to ear since the home team won. Dad is not so happy nor are most of the exiting Detroit fans.

Junior: That was a great game Dad. I am glad Detroit won.
Dad: Well they did outscore the Lakers son, but we lost the game.
Junior: No Dad - we won 112 to 101. We scored the most points.
Dad: Well son, the league changed the rules to make sure every quarter was hard fought. They put in a system where the winner of each quarter gets one point and the one who scores the most points in the game gets an additional point. Since Los Angeles won three quarters they earned three points and Detroit who won only one quarter and the most points in the game got only two points. So the Lakers win three points to two.
Son: Thats stupid. Every kid knows that when you get the most points you win. Adults are really dumb.
Dad: Well son, did I ever tell you about the Electoral College?

First, your analogy doesn't fit the situation. FAIL

The "winner" doesn't go on to push policy that impacts everyone living in the Nation.
 
A true democracy is one in which the people directly are the government - picture New England town hall government. Obviously in a nation our size that is not even possible nor practical.

We have a republican form of government by constitutional mandate and a democratic republic would still be a republic. Getting rid of the EC does not change that.

A "Democratic Republic" and a "Federal Republic" are vastly different things.

A Constitutional Monarchy and a Dictatorial Monarchy are also vastly different things even though they share a word in the description.

You rightly cited the New England town hall. This is a device that brings the power of government closer to the people.

What you are asking for is a device that removes the power of government further from the people.

A Democratic Republic on the scale of the USA would in effect be an oligarchy. We are already dangerously close to that sorry state of affairs.

The further we can withdraw from sending more power to DC, the better off we will all be.
 
Argued like a true globalist.

However, "States" are not formed in a vacuum, they are formed by diverse groupings of people.

For example. Europe is arguably the locale of people with pale skin and bright colored eyes. One could argue this makes them all one in the same.

Yet this monochromal group ended up being divided into Germans, Greeks, Swedes, Scots, Irish, etc. Even under the EU they constantly disagree on local grounds.

In the far east we have China, a united land currently but once a land divided by States with differing languages both before and after the First Emperor. Even today most Chinese still speak local dialects and consider themselves Han, Manchu, Hui, and a dozen other ethnic groups while learning one "official language."

Human beings are "Tribal" and "Clannish," identifying with family first, then local affiliations, then state affiliations, and finally national prides. We are a mishmash of diverse belief systems, races, and opinions, not one mass conglomeration.

States are, to paraphrase your own statement, "groupings of people with similar interests." Thus you are actually arguing for their valid existence, and in fact providing your own refutation as to their value.

People in Iowa don't think the way people in New York do and vice-versa.

They need to feel properly represented in the central government or there will be a drive to secede and take care of their own affairs more locally.

The Congress, where the real power lies, is where our Founding Fathers provided democratic representation. The President was supposed to be a figure who was obligated in some way to all the people of the various States.

Hence, the electoral college which balances the Tyranny of the Majority in Congress with a "ruler" answerable to all the people.

Not one thing you said there actually dealt with the substance of my post.
 
I was born in Minnesota where I went to school and am still awaiting the successful completion of the rebuilding program for their football program begun in 1968.

However, If I desire to live in the hubbub of a large city or in the isolation of a mountain top, my desires for and demands of the local government would be vastly different.

In New York City, my feelings on the regulations guiding the installation of my septic system would depart greatly from my same feeling living in the Rocky Mountains. In one place it's needed and in the other, not so much.

The same is true of gun ownership, neighborhood watch groups or regulations governing the use of the creek running through my property.

Being able to count the votes is NOT the issue here.

People in different situations need and desire different things.

We might all be Americans, but that means that we are a group of groups. Each group is significant and needs representation.

You are endorsing what Hamilton referred to as "The Tyranny of the Majority".

Tyranny is tyranny. To the folks of the Blue States, Tyranny is more desired. To the folks of the Red States, it is less so.

Reality proves you wrong as people in all fifty states can be found on all sides of issues and for and against all manner of candidates and political parties. .

So you prefer a tyranny of the minority? That goes against a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
 
What are you endorsing in this?

Without states, either the Various states as defined in the Constitution or the Nation States as recognized world wide, there is anarchy.

People organize into units that allow the regulation of activity for protection of the weaker from the actions of the stronger.

That is utterly absurd that without different states there is anarchy. You could abolish the individual states tomorrow and there would NOT be anarchy.

I am simply endorsing that the presidency be discussed by a straight vote of the people.
 
Last edited:
First, your analogy doesn't fit the situation. FAIL

The "winner" doesn't go on to push policy that impacts everyone living in the Nation.

Actually it fits the situation perfectly as every other political election in America is decided by who gets the most votes and that is how the winner is decided. No other election is decided on some half-assed EC formula as the presidency is.

So the only one failing here is you.
 
A "Democratic Republic" and a "Federal Republic" are vastly different things.

A Constitutional Monarchy and a Dictatorial Monarchy are also vastly different things even though they share a word in the description.

You rightly cited the New England town hall. This is a device that brings the power of government closer to the people.

What you are asking for is a device that removes the power of government further from the people.

A Democratic Republic on the scale of the USA would in effect be an oligarchy. We are already dangerously close to that sorry state of affairs.

The further we can withdraw from sending more power to DC, the better off we will all be.

The constitution only mandates a republican form of government and abolishing the EC would not be any violation of that mandate.
 
Actually it fits the situation perfectly as every other political election in America is decided by who gets the most votes and that is how the winner is decided. No other election is decided on some half-assed EC formula as the presidency is.

So the only one failing here is you.

There is no connection and relevance to a sporting event, versus electing the President of the United States.

Please explain how the "victor" in your example would then go about setting National Policy that would impact every person living in the United States.
 
There is no connection and relevance to a sporting event, versus electing the President of the United States.

Please explain how the "victor" in your example would then go about setting National Policy that would impact every person living in the United States.

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.
 
Is there some disability which prevents you from discussing the issue on its merits and resorting to childish personal sniping?

There is no merit or issue to your story and you know it. It's just another rant in a very long line of them.
Buddy take a look at your post.... "childish"
 
Back
Top Bottom