|
Post by cestlefun17 on Dec 5, 2011 12:07:40 GMT -5
People on this board really have to learn the difference between formal and informal fallacies. Obviously what the Founding Fathers say isn't factually absolute, as whether or not democracy is the best form of government isn't a matter of fact like 1+1. But these people did set up the government we currently use, and are considered great thinkers in the area of political science, so their discourse is due some weight.
It's not that a direct vote of the President would elect a candidate who would "ruin everything," it's just that it is not compatible with the United States' philosophy of government and sovereignty.
While there may have been some truth to this, it ignores the greater philosophical question of sovereignty. (Although I disagree about the unjustified modifier: the "common man" in the 1700s was horribly uneducated (if at all) and did not have access to media or other news sources as we have today. Also, given the reaction to evil, socialized medicine, I'd say there may be some truth to this still)
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Dec 5, 2011 15:07:53 GMT -5
People on this board really have to learn the difference between formal and informal fallacies. Obviously what the Founding Fathers say isn't factually absolute, as whether or not democracy is the best form of government isn't a matter of fact like 1+1. But these people did set up the government we currently use, and are considered great thinkers in the area of political science, so their discourse is due some weight. You not liking it does not mean it becomes a good enough reason. You're also placing them as some monolithic group, despite them often vehemently disagreeing with each other. How about you use actual reasons instead? Not really, no, not when other offices are elected based on a majority. Even at the state level we don't institute an equivalent. It's a pointless system which does more to damage our electoral process by removing the weight of votes of people who live in solidly red or blue states while adding weight to the votes of people who live in what are considered battleground states. In effect, somebody who lives in Florida has more say in the 2012 election than I do because I live in a solid blue state and Florida is a swing state. That does not mesh with the principle of equality and representation the US was founded upon. I do not have the same representation as the equivalent me in Florida. Floridan me is courted, Minnesotan me is ignored. The philosophy has changed since we were a confederacy, for example states didn't use to have to follow the US constitution, it was applicable only to how the federal government acted, this is no longer the case. The original philosophy is a red herring, we don't have to abide by it if we don't want to, which is good because it had serious flaws. Not to mention you said simultaneously the people in the 1700s* couldn't be trusted when they didn't have access to media like today while you also say the people with access to the media are grossly misinformed. Way to contradict yourself. *I have no idea why you think we should hold ourselves to 18th century principles.
|
|
|
Post by SimSim on Dec 5, 2011 16:16:09 GMT -5
The video is correct when it says "This is not democracy." We're not a democracy: we're a federal republic. The US is both a democracy and a federal republic. While not a direct democracy, it is a representative democracy.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Dec 5, 2011 16:24:18 GMT -5
Cestle, the original arguments for the Electoral College are irrelevent because the very nature of politics has changed so much since then. Political parties, lobbying, increasing trends towards a global economy, all of these & more weren't factors back then.
Also, to be perfectly honest, your entire political philosophy seems like a bizarre mix of mob rule & Locke. Though you are unwilling to admit that "might makes right," on multiple occasions, you have essentially said that the majority can do whatever they want. In fact, why are you even arguing this? You have stated many times before that we can get rid of representatives if we damn well want to.
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Dec 5, 2011 21:06:05 GMT -5
It amuses me that Celestefun keeps insisting we're wrong because he says we're wrong.
Ironbite-like that'll change our minds.
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Dec 6, 2011 4:08:42 GMT -5
They did vehemently disagree with each other, but they were all—the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists—fairly united against the idea of democracy, which they saw as an uncontrollable mob rule, and I agree with them. If power is too far spread out, as in a democracy, it is hard to control and maintain; if power is too highly concentrated, as in a dictatorship or absolute monarchy, it can too easily be abused.
The way Congress is elected poses the same problems that the video on the Electoral College. Congressional representatives are voted on based on a majority within the state or district, just like the Electoral College. Every state gets two Senators, so the population of Alaska is disproportionally represented in the Senate in comparison to California. While the House of Representatives is apportioned by population, each state gets at least one representative regardless of population, so an at-large district like Wyoming will have a little over 563,000 while Michigan's 6th District has more than 660,000 people. It seems "unfair" when you look at it in terms of people, but it is entirely fair when looked at in terms of states.
Because the states are not composed of sub-national sovereign entities. The people form the states, so it makes sense that they will directly vote for their state government officials.
States did have to follow the portions of the U.S. Constitution that were applicable to them (Art. I §10), which was significantly expanded with the ratification of the 14th Amendment. No, we don't have to abide by the original philosophy if we don't want to, but we would have to radically alter the sovereign philosophy of the United States.
It's important to distinguish problems with the Electoral College, and problems with the way Electoral Votes are allocated. Fixing this problem does not necessarily mean you have to get rid of the Electoral College. My preferred policy is to have the state legislature allocate the Electoral Votes. It would greatly reduce the need for costly political campaigns that can be infiltrated by special interest and puts more power back into the hands of state-level representation.
It's not a contradiction: the people of the 1700s had very little media, and the people of today have too much bad media. One population is un-informed; the other is mis-informed. Both are bad qualities.
I don't actually believe we should maintain the Electoral College because people back in the 18th-century had little access to information, I'm just saying that you calling that concern by the Founding Fathers "unjustified" was not entirely just.
"Might makes right" is an incredibly broad statement. "Might" cannot decide matters of fact: for example if a majority of people believe in creationism that does not make it any more true. However, in terms of public policy, the majority (and not necessarily the "mightiest": a dictator will have the most might in a government but not necessarily backed by the majority) have the right to direct public policy as they see fit, within the confines of the social contract (the Constitution) we have established which is the embodiment of a society's supreme will. I am fascinated by Enlightenment thinkers, such as John Locke and other thinkers of the social contract school (e.g. Rousseau, Hobbes).
----
I get the arguments for a direct vote of the President. It makes sense if you believe the federal government should derive its power from the people. I am culturally very conservative: I take comfort in stability and preserving history. A system that has the state legislatures vote for the President is a fair system when looked at in regards to the states, as it strikes a balance between disparity in state population and the equal sovereign nature of the states by giving a boost to smaller states with the 2 electoral votes from the Senate count.
I'll give this to you all as a victory, because there is no hard-and-fast way to definitively prove that the American federalist philosophy of sovereignty whereby the federal government derives its sovereignty from the states is inherently better than a philosophy whereby the federal government derives its sovereignty from the people. The reverse isn't necessary "better" either, it's just different.
If we were to impose a direct vote of the President, I'm curious as to what your policies would be in the event that no candidate wins a majority of the vote, and also what would happen in the event of a tie?
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Dec 6, 2011 15:35:54 GMT -5
Uhh, actually, it kind of does. Your philosophy gives the ability to dictate public policy to the people/representatives. You also do not constrain this power by objective reason.
So the policymakers can decide Creationism is true AND completely disregard all evidence that they're wrong.
At this point, saying "They still can't make Creationism true!" is really an empty statement. They have the ability to enforce it AS true, & that's all they really need.
|
|
|
Post by Star Cluster on Dec 6, 2011 16:26:32 GMT -5
I've always had a problem with the Electoral College. Another scenario that I've always thought about, while not very probable to happen but is still within the realm of possibility, is that a candidate can get elected president with only 11 popular votes nationally.
The way this can happen is for the 11 states with the most electoral votes to each have only one person show up to vote and each of those vote for the same candidate. This would give that candidate 270 electoral votes, exactly enough to win the election, regardless of how many popular votes he/she got in the other 39 states. His opponent could win those other 39 states by millions of votes but it wouldn't make any difference.
Like I said, this scenario is extremely unlikely as it is not probable that only 1 person in a sate will show up to vote. I used it for illustrative purposes. It just demonstrates that it is possible for a candidate to win the presidency with close to 0% of the popular vote nationally if he wins the right states.
|
|
|
Post by brendanrizzo on Dec 6, 2011 17:41:19 GMT -5
Do you REALLY wanna be giving the GOP any ideas, Star Cluster?!
|
|
|
Post by Star Cluster on Dec 6, 2011 20:27:50 GMT -5
Do you REALLY wanna be giving the GOP any ideas, Star Cluster?! It would be a pretty stupid strategy to purposefully try getting it to happen. While the possibility exists that something like this could occur, the chances are extremely remote. Of course, we are talking about the current day GOP, so who knows what they'll try.
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Dec 6, 2011 20:59:49 GMT -5
I know what would happen in the event of a tie: duel...TO THE DEATH! Let em beat eachother to a pulp for our entertainment, and the winner gets to be President if his brain isn't turned into a pulp.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Dec 7, 2011 3:19:59 GMT -5
The Founding Fathers abhorred the mob rule of democracy Because they were rich oligarchs. Democracy stands opposed to oligarchy, so to maintain their 'right' to earn virtually all the wealth in society, maintain outright slavery and so on, democracy was strongly limited by property voting restrictions, among other things. There's that famous line from Jefferson "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." The wolves are the poor, voting for (illegitimate) progressive taxation, welfare polices, education, abolition and so on- while the poor, innocent sheep is the mere rich- who only want their rights to millions of unpaid labourers, to charge rent on land provided free by the state and to exemption from the laws of the land. That's also what's meant by 'states rights'. The 'rights' of the state always stand opposed to the rights of the individual. So 'states righst' means the right of the state to enslave millions of people, or to continue persecution of people on the basis of race or gender. Or to simply pass bad policy, or act incompetantly or corruptly. And 'state' doesn't even necessarily refer to the actual people of a geographic area. It can refer to a handful of people calling themselves the representatives of those people- and not necessarily acting with their assent or in their interests. A good example is South Carolina's secession. Half-a-dozen rich people decided that a majority of their population should continue to have zero rights- on the basis of 'states rights'. Now, I agree with a system of checks and balances. How would you have a democratic system without checks and balances? Democracy is a perfectly stable system. Probably more stable.
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Dec 7, 2011 3:45:40 GMT -5
Yes, the government has the ability to take a position that something is true, even if it isn't. I'm not saying it's a good idea; I'm saying that the people have that ability. Although Creationism is off-limits because teaching that in public schools, or having the government in any way endorse it, would violate our social contract.
Here's a scenario where someone can elected with 0 votes nationally:
Candidate A gets 270 Electoral Votes in the November general election and therefore should WIN! Candidate B gets 268 Electoral Votes.
But when the Electors convene in December in their respective state capitals, there is one elector pledged to A becomes a faithless elector and casts her vote for Candidate C (while many states forbid faithless electors, some do not have such prohibitions). Candidate C received 0 votes in the popular vote.
Candidate A: 269 Candidate B: 269 Candidate C: 1
The presidential election is now thrown to the House of Representatives, who choose from the 3 candidates with the most electoral votes, and vote by state delegation. A majority of state delegations vote for Candidate C, and C is elected President of the United States.
"States' rights" refers to the powers that the states have the right to exert. So yes, before slavery was abolished the states unfortunately had the right to enslave people. Fortunately, we ratified the 13th and 14th Amendment to take this right away from the states. Not every state power is bad; it includes mostly routine things like intra-state commerce and education. Individuals still have rights: they are mostly negative rights, i.e. things that the state can't do to them.
After Proposition 8 in California, I am loathe to consider democracy a "perfectly stable system." The will of the majority should be given great deference, certainly, but it needs to be tempered to protect certain rights of the minority. It is also simply unfeasible for the entire populace to vote and decide on every single issue that comes before them. As Jefferson said, "The whole body of the nation is the sovereign legislative, judiciary, and executive power for itself. The inconvenience of meeting to exercise these powers in person, and their inaptitude to exercise them, induce them to appoint special organs to declare their legislative will, to judge and to execute it" ("Letter to Edmund Randolph," 18 August 1799). A democratic republic is better and with universal suffrage eliminates the elitism of having only rich, white landowners vote.
The electors of the Electoral College aren't necessarily rich. They are not chosen for their wealth or even their expertise in politics. They are simply a function of the state; they are the voice of the state.
===
Also some other questions for the anti-Electoral College side:
1) What is your opinion of the United States Senate? Would this also have to be reformed or abolished?
2) What is your opinion on the manner in which constitutional amendments are proposed and ratified? When it comes to constitutional amendments, the legislature of Wyoming gets the same single vote as the legislature of California.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Dec 7, 2011 3:56:12 GMT -5
It makes sense if you believe the federal government should derive its power from the people. Clearly this is the case. Governments, whether state or federal, exist to serve the people- and therefore have no rights. Governments legitimately rule only with the consent of the governed. The states do not matter. If it were found that the state could not serve the people well*, they would not even have the right to exist. * Ie- better than a single, central government backed by local governments.
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Dec 7, 2011 4:12:07 GMT -5
Governments legitmately rule only with the consent of the governed, I agree. But it is just not the case that governments "have no rights." It sounds nice to say, but it just isn't true. For example, the states have a constitutional right to equal suffrage in the Senate. This is actually the most closely guarded constitutional right in the United States as it is the only constitutional right that can never be amended out of the Constitution.
The people would have to elect state legislatures who would vote to make their state part of another state (with the consent of that other state and Congress), or amend the Constitution to eliminate that state and put it under direct control of the federal government. It is possible to do. But until it does, the states do exist, and still have much of the sovereignty they had as independent countries before forming the United States.
|
|