• 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 minority majority

HowardBThiname said:
I think this is a symptom of the disconnect we have today in our nation. It's less important that a candidate care (specifically) for any individual state than it is that the people of the state care about what the candidate represents.

It really depends on what the candidate offers -- Kansas went blue for Lyndon Johnson, after all -- so it's not a done deal that it will always go red. It depends on the candidate. Perhaps a candidate doesn't care for Kansas, specifically, but if his policies support Kansans, we'll vote for him. If a Democrat ran that supported farmers, oil, fiscal conservancy, the 2nd Amendment, and theology, Kansans will vote for him, because a person of that nature appeals to a majority of Kansans.

But, the states elect the President -- not the individuals.
Click to expand...

That's not how it works in the real world at all. A state that vote's Republican votes Republican for president no matter what. The same is true for a state that votes Demcorat all the time. It's tribalism, the issues themselves are secondary.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
That's not how it works in the real world at all. A state that vote's Republican votes Republican for president no matter what. The same is true for a state that votes Demcorat all the time. It's tribalism, the issues themselves are secondary.
Click to expand...

Then why did Kansas go blue for Johnson?
 
MrWonka said:
Sure, that's fine, but the point is that so long as the number of Senators is independent of a state's population, the lower population states will have more power than they deserve. This is particularly troubling when considering the fact that the reason their populations are so small is that people already don't want to live there.
Click to expand...

Well, yes. But that is the PURPOSE of the Senate. That it equilibrates the power of the Legislative Branch whilst the HofR disequilibrates the power. There is balance in the two-chamber approach to governance.

Except for the fact that political-power gets encrusted - by the people - who always vote for same person because they are so "nice". Being nice is a fine quality - but not the most important in political representation. I prefer someone who is intelligent and reflects upon the issues/problems of government.

We seem to think long-experience brings one that ability. It doesn't necessarily. One's competence as a representative of the people is more a matter of intelligence than experience. And we have enough intelligent people in this country to replace congressmen and women every 12-years. That is, every three presidential election years when getting out the vote is higher than in the "off years". See here.

We don't need the effing Electoral College ... !
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Because everyone went blue for Johnson. I guess we can say every 150 years or so, Kansas will go blue.
Click to expand...

That just goes to show that a well-rounded candidate can win in both parties. We just haven't had one of those for a long time. But, either way, I don't care if a candidate comes to Kansas - I care if his or her policies benefit Kansas.
 
HowardBThiname said:
That just goes to show that a well-rounded candidate can win in both parties. We just haven't had one of those for a long time. But, either way, I don't care if a candidate comes to Kansas - I care if his or her policies benefit Kansas.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't show that. It shows that the only way Kansas ever comes into play, and thus a candidate would ever be concerned with Kansas voters, would be if Kansans were all afraid that should the Republican win, they will be annihilated in a nuclear apocalypse. That is the bar for Kansas ever being in play in a presidential election. We hit it once, 1964.
 
Harshaw said:
Electing the "executive" actually doesn't have much to do with "democracy." It doesn't much matter where the "executive" comes from in terms of "democracy," which is why very few countries actually directly elect their executives.
Click to expand...

Don't know where you get that idea from. Because it is dead-wrong.

Let's compare apples with apples. The US and the EU both have legislative governments. The EU however has its head-of-government, at present, dissimilated in each member country. There is no equivalent PotEU.

Yet, in the voting for the head of country government, the vote is direct - thus neither gerrymandered nor "moneyed" nor manipulated in any way whatsoever. And where do you think the European country-leaders got their opinion to have NO ELECTORAL COLLEGE in the voting of their national Prime Ministers?

One guess! They found the popular-vote was naturally very fitting to decide who runs the country. (Because the PM was head of the party that won the popular-vote AND because they also had Supreme Courts to decide delicate matters regarding their laws.)

Harshaw said:
The "democracy" happens in Congress, where law is passed by the people's representatives. All the "executive" is there for is to do carry out what Congress enacts, in the name of the people. The "executive" is an administrator, not a ruler.

This is very, very basic civics and junior-high level American Government.
Click to expand...

Nope, and it never has been. Governance in a true-democracy is always tripartite: Executive, Legislative and Judicial.

From the very beginning the New Americans were concerned about the concentration of power. After all, they had just fought and won a war with a British King.

They wanted therefore a government that was "a balance of powers" (plural)! And for good reason.

Because with us humans, from the dawn of time to the 18th century, the problem was that when power was concentrated it had become overwhelmingly abused. (Which was particularly noteworthy of the Roman Empire.)

Thus, the concentration of power has no place in a real "democracy". Besides, with intelligent people, the three powers (Executive, Legislative and Judicial) all learn to get along. They all understand the limits of their power, which without limits would be excessive ...
 
Last edited:
Lafayette said:
Well, yes. But that is the PURPOSE of the Senate. That it equilibrates the power of the Legislative Branch whilst the HofR disequilibrates the power. There is balance in the two-chamber approach to governance.
Click to expand...
That is nonsensical and outdated. The Senate is by far the more powerful branch. Not only given that Senators serve 6-year terms but in that they are the only chamber that can confirm political appointments. Any legislation that would pass requires both branches to approve it. If one branch is controlled by a radical minority it is a serious problem.

Each state is not equal. That is nonsensically stupid. I realize that at the founding of the country the states were far more autonomous and had valid reasons to want to control their own sovereignty more, but as technological advances require more and more decisions to be made at the federal level it is ludicrous to give states like Wyoming and Rhode Island equal say to states like California and Texas.
 
MrWonka said:
I think the bigger problem that we're going to have as we move forward is not so much the electoral college but in fact the Senate. The EC is a problem, but realistically as long as the number of votes each state gets is relative to their population it's not the end of the world. Obviously, most of us wish this election went the other way, but the vote was pretty close to 50/50, so obviously there was close 50% that did, in fact, want this outcome. Gerrymandering is a bigger problem, but the good news is that we have another census in 2020 when Trump will be up for re-election. It is a virtual certainty that in a presidential election year that's going to go very well for Democrats, and they will then benefit from Gerrymandering for the next decade.

The Senate, however, is a major problem. Young educated professionals are fleeing the midwest and great plains states in droves and heading for the coasts. As these middle America states become less populated and more rural they become the more right-wing, but they still retain the same number of Senate seats that more liberal coastal states have. The state of Wyoming, for instance, has a smaller population than just the city of Washington DC. That's just one city whose population beats out an entire state, yet the state of Wyoming has 2 Senators DC has none. The state of California absolutely dwarfs Wyoming. They have about 10 times Wyoming's population in California, but both states have the same number of Senators.

This means that a vote in Wyoming is worth significantly more than a vote in California, Illinois, New York, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia or Texas. Only one of which is solidly Republican. The more that liberals consolidate themselves into major cities the worst this problem is going to get. The Senate has enormous power being the only chamber that matters when it comes to confirming judges and other executive appointments.

In 2016 30 states voted for Trump. Even though Hillary won the popular vote she got it with only 20 states overwhelmingly supporting her. If that trend continues it will mean that Republicans could potentially end up with a solid 60 Senators despite never winning the popular vote overall. If something isn't done to correct this soon it could become a very serious problem in the future the future.
Click to expand...

This means that a vote in Wyoming is worth significantly more than a vote in California, Illinois, New York, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia or Texas.
Click to expand...

The votes are worth the same because the Constitution is a compact between the states, not a compact between the varying populations of the states.
 
Lafayette said:
France has no idiotic Electoral College ...
Click to expand...


france cannot get its act together

France has had numerous past constitutions.

The ancien régime was an absolute monarchy and lacked a formal constitution; the régime essentially relied on custom.
The Revolutionary Era saw a number of constitutions:
A liberal monarchical constitution was adopted October 6, 1789 and accepted by the king on July 14, 1790.
The Constitution of 1791 or Constitution of September 3, 1791 established a limited monarchy and the Legislative Assembly.
The Constitution of 1793 or Constitution of June 24, 1793 (Fr. Acte constitutionnel du 24 juin 1793), or Montagnard Constitution (Fr. Constitution montagnarde) was ratified, but never applied, due to the suspension of all ordinary legality October 10, 1793 (French First Republic)
The Constitution of 1795, Constitution of August 22, 1795, Constitution of the Year III, or Constitution of 5 Fructidor established the Directory.
The Constitution of the Year VIII, adopted December 24, 1799, established the Consulate.
The Constitution of the Year X established a revised Consulate, with Napoleon as First Consul for Life.
The Constitution of the Year XII established the First French Empire.
Following the restoration of the Monarchy
The Charter of 1814 adopted on June 4, 1814 reestablished the Monarchy
The additional act to the Constitutions of the Empire during the Hundred Days, April 23, 1815 (brief return of Napoleon to power)
The Charter of 1830 adopted on August 14, 1830 ("July Monarchy")
19th century
The French Constitution of 1848 of the Second French Republic, November 4, 1848
The French Constitution of 1852 of the French Second Empire, January 14, 1852
The French Constitutional Laws of 1875 of the French Third Republic, February 24 and 25, and July 16, 1875
20th century
(The French Constitutional Law of 1940 establishing Vichy France, Pétain's WWII government that collaborated with Nazi Germany.)
The constitutional law of November 2, 1945 – post-WWII provisional government
The French Constitution of 1946 of the French Fourth Republic, October 27, 1946 "

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070215204903AAq1wgx
 
Last edited:
Linc said:
And now you know why Republicans want to do away with the 17th amendment of President Theodore Roosevelt, one of the four great faces.
Click to expand...

President Theodore Roosevelt thought he was a King and could do what he wanted.

amendments don't have anything to do with the president
 
MrWonka said:
That is nonsensical and outdated. The Senate is by far the more powerful branch. Not only given that Senators serve 6-year terms but in that they are the only chamber that can confirm political appointments. Any legislation that would pass requires both branches to approve it. If one branch is controlled by a radical minority it is a serious problem.

Each state is not equal. That is nonsensically stupid. I realize that at the founding of the country the states were far more autonomous and had valid reasons to want to control their own sovereignty more, but as technological advances require more and more decisions to be made at the federal level it is ludicrous to give states like Wyoming and Rhode Island equal say to states like California and Texas.
Click to expand...

...but as technological advances require more and more decisions to be made at the federal level it is ludicrous to give states like Wyoming and Rhode Island equal say to states like California and Texas.
Click to expand...

Technology has nothing to do with it, and you are promoting not only mob rule, but a doctrine that has destroyed every empire.
 
MrWonka said:
I think the bigger problem that we're going to have as we move forward is not so much the electoral college but in fact the Senate. The EC is a problem, but realistically as long as the number of votes each state gets is relative to their population it's not the end of the world. Obviously, most of us wish this election went the other way, but the vote was pretty close to 50/50, so obviously there was close 50% that did, in fact, want this outcome. Gerrymandering is a bigger problem, but the good news is that we have another census in 2020 when Trump will be up for re-election. It is a virtual certainty that in a presidential election year that's going to go very well for Democrats, and they will then benefit from Gerrymandering for the next decade.

The Senate, however, is a major problem. Young educated professionals are fleeing the midwest and great plains states in droves and heading for the coasts. As these middle America states become less populated and more rural they become the more right-wing, but they still retain the same number of Senate seats that more liberal coastal states have. The state of Wyoming, for instance, has a smaller population than just the city of Washington DC. That's just one city whose population beats out an entire state, yet the state of Wyoming has 2 Senators DC has none. The state of California absolutely dwarfs Wyoming. They have about 10 times Wyoming's population in California, but both states have the same number of Senators.

This means that a vote in Wyoming is worth significantly more than a vote in California, Illinois, New York, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia or Texas. Only one of which is solidly Republican. The more that liberals consolidate themselves into major cities the worst this problem is going to get. The Senate has enormous power being the only chamber that matters when it comes to confirming judges and other executive appointments.

In 2016 30 states voted for Trump. Even though Hillary won the popular vote she got it with only 20 states overwhelmingly supporting her. If that trend continues it will mean that Republicans could potentially end up with a solid 60 Senators despite never winning the popular vote overall. If something isn't done to correct this soon it could become a very serious problem in the future the future.
Click to expand...


this is false

WY has 3 electoral votes, 2 votes for being a state and 1 vote for its people because WY is one single district.

CA has 55 electoral votes, 2 votes for being a state and 53 votes for its people because of its 53 districts.

D.C. is not a state at all, and it gets 3 electoral votes for its 600,000 people since 1964 and D.C. has always voted for democrats.
 
Tennyson said:
The votes are worth the same because the Constitution is a compact between the states, not a compact between the varying populations of the states.
Click to expand...

That is an obsolete and incredibly stupid notion. It's been 200 years since the framing of the Constitution. Technology has made the idea of 50 entirely separate and sovereign states nonsensical. There is no valid reason to continue acting like North Carolina and South Carolina are to entirely separate countries. They're very clearly not.
 
MrWonka said:
That is an obsolete and incredibly stupid notion. It's been 200 years since the framing of the Constitution. Technology has made the idea of 50 entirely separate and sovereign states nonsensical. There is no valid reason to continue acting like North Carolina and South Carolina are to entirely separate countries. They're very clearly not.
Click to expand...


the u.s. is union of states

why dont you just say you want to abolish the constitution
 
Last edited:
MrWonka said:
It is objectively mathematically true.
Click to expand...

wrong, stop listening to media heads and read yourself

WY has 3 electoral votes, 2 votes for being a state and 1 vote for its people because WY is one single district.

CA has 55 electoral votes, 2 votes for being a state and 53 votes for its people because of its 53 districts.

D.C. is not a state at all, and it gets 3 electoral votes for its 600,000 people since 1964 and D.C. has always voted for democrats.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Why does that not happen in state races for governor then? Governors campaign all over a state, rural areas, urban areas, small towns, suburbs and so on because they are trying to maximize their vote. Now sure, in a state, a Democratic candidate will focus their campaigning more on diverse cities and a Republican candidate more on exurbs, smaller town, and rural areas, but both candidates will still spend some time campaigning all over the state. Why do you think it would be any different for a presidential election? Look at every country on earth that elects their president, the candidates campaign all over the country.
Click to expand...

In 20 years I've yet to see a governor hopeful campaign in my town. My State votes red and so does my town. One would think that if what you said is true then out of 20 years at least one governor hopeful would have visited at least once in that time. No matter what system you have there is going to be "fly over" country. But making it harder to tell where a candidate needs to go is going to make it fairer than making it to where they will always go the same direction every single time.
 
Master PO said:
france cannot get its act together

France has had numerous past constitutions.

The ancien régime was an absolute monarchy and lacked a formal constitution; the régime essentially relied on custom.
Click to expand...

So what? Are you trying to argue that France's original efforts at a constitution that were disastrous than the fact that the US (a supposedly "country of freedom") allowed slavery? Wow!

It doesn't matter how a country evolves as long as its functioning is based upon the popular-vote. Which is both its strength and weakness - and particularly weakness when a country "invents" an Electoral College that misrepresents the popular-vote.

What evidently you do not understand is that for any Real Democracy the popular-vote is SACRED.

The French government functions today in perfect order, and has for some time in its, yes, 5th Republic

More than in the US, there are 4/5 political parties that all have seats in the National Assembly (HofR) and the Senate. (France is unique in replicating the American system of national governance).

Very much unlike the two-party system in the US and its warped connivance between elected politicians and BigMoney France limits electioneering budgets! For more on that subject, see here.

I am not French, and I do not vote in France ...
 
MrWonka said:
That is an obsolete and incredibly stupid notion. It's been 200 years since the framing of the Constitution. Technology has made the idea of 50 entirely separate and sovereign states nonsensical. There is no valid reason to continue acting like North Carolina and South Carolina are to entirely separate countries. They're very clearly not.
Click to expand...

Technology does no such thing.

You seem to be a fanatic about shredding the Constitution and just winging.

There is nothing obsolete about your views as controlling people, states, and cultures has been around and failed since recorded history.

It appears that you are living in the wrong country. Perhaps Venezuela or North Korea would be a better suited environment.
 
Tennyson said:
It is the point.
Click to expand...

Is it? Its highly debatable that the American revolution led to other Western countries becoming democracies and even if that were true, it just means the students have surpassed the teacher, US system seems worse then other democracies that do not issues like gerrymandering.
 
Lafayette said:
So what? Are you trying to argue that France's original efforts at a constitution that were disastrous than the fact that the US (a supposedly "country of freedom") allowed slavery? Wow!

It doesn't matter how a country evolves as long as its functioning is based upon the popular-vote. Which is both its strength and weakness - and particularly weakness when a country "invents" an Electoral College that misrepresents the popular-vote.

What evidently you do not understand is that for any Real Democracy the popular-vote is SACRED.

The French government functions today in perfect order, and has for some time in its, yes, 5th Republic

More than in the US, there are 4/5 political parties that all have seats in the National Assembly (HofR) and the Senate. (France is unique in replicating the American system of national governance).

Very much unlike the two-party system in the US and its warped connivance between elected politicians and BigMoney France limits electioneering budgets! For more on that subject, see here.

I am not French, and I do not vote in France ...
Click to expand...

your location is france

and france cant get its act together
 
Master PO said:
wrong, stop listening to media heads and read yourself

WY has 3 electoral votes, 2 votes for being a state and 1 vote for its people because WY is one single district.

CA has 55 electoral votes, 2 votes for being a state and 53 votes for its people because of its 53 districts.

D.C. is not a state at all, and it gets 3 electoral votes for its 600,000 people since 1964 and D.C. has always voted for Democrats.
Click to expand...

I don't need media heads to do my math for me. I did it just fine.

The population of Wyoming is 579,315. That equals 1 Senate vote for every 289,657 people. The population of California is 39.54 million and still gets 2 senate votes. That's 1 vote for ever 19,770,000 people.

The house is irrelevant. Nothing it passes can become law without the approval of the Senate. Meanwhile, the Senate can approve all kinds of judges and cabinet appointees without giving a flying **** what the house says about it.

I don't give a **** about states. I give a **** about people. States are nothing but arbitrary lines on a map. There is no rational purpose to treat them each as equal when they are very clearly not.
 
Master PO said:
your location is france

and france cant get its act together
Click to expand...

France currently has a better claim to being the leader of the free world than America does. So does Germany and Canada frankly.
 
MrWonka said:
I don't need media heads to do my math for me. I did it just fine.

The population of Wyoming is 579,315. That equals 1 Senate vote for every 289,657 people. The population of California is 39.54 million and still gets 2 senate votes. That's 1 vote for ever 19,770,000 people.

The house is irrelevant. Nothing it passes can become law without the approval of the Senate. Meanwhile, the Senate can approve all kinds of judges and cabinet appointees without giving a flying **** what the house says about it.

I don't give a **** about states. I give a **** about people. States are nothing but arbitrary lines on a map. There is no rational purpose to treat them each as equal when they are very clearly not.
Click to expand...

lol.... you need to redo you math
D.C. is not a state at all, and it gets 3 electoral votes for its 600,000 people since 1964 and D.C. has always voted for Democrats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom