| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 5:32 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
A constitutional convention is not
required.
|
I didn't mean to imply one is required. I mentioned a convention because the scale of the changes are revolutionary. |
Revolution would be outside of the context of the constitution revolution
requires no convention. However the subject of revolution and it's
justifications are found within the context of the declaration of
independence.
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these
ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute
new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing
its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their
Safety and Happiness. "
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cb, are you saying you want to scrap the Constitution and start again? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Milwaukiedave
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Location: Goseong
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I tend to agree, the EC should be reformed not scraped. Although a direct vote sounds like an interesting way to go, Ya-Ta is right. I think it would be too tempting to start changing other things in the Consititution if they started messing with one issue. It could open up a whole new can of worms (so to speak).
If all the states could agree, one way would be to allocate winners by Congressional District rather then winner takes all in each state. Then again, the problem is some states will resist for fear of hurting whichever party they lean toward (an example would be Kansas for conservatives or Minnesota for liberals).
Maybe someone could research this question: Would EC reform require a consitutional amendment? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| cb, are you saying you want to scrap the Constitution and start again? |
No.
You mentioned revolution, I merely stated the relevant facts and talking points for understanding what revolution means in the context of the American experience. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Milwaukiedave wrote: |
I tend to agree, the EC should be reformed not scraped. Although a direct vote sounds like an interesting way to go, Ya-Ta is right. I think it would be too tempting to start changing other things in the Consititution if they started messing with one issue. It could open up a whole new can of worms (so to speak).
If all the states could agree, one way would be to allocate winners by Congressional District rather then winner takes all in each state. Then again, the problem is some states will resist for fear of hurting whichever party they lean toward (an example would be Kansas for conservatives or Minnesota for liberals).
Maybe someone could research this question: Would EC reform require a consitutional amendment? |
Yes the EC has been reformed in couple of different ammendment. I
posted a link earlier that outlined the history of the the EC.
It's a nice read gives the pros and cons to the EC leaves a out few
points, but in general a good bit of information. The EC was fashioned
after the College of Cardinals. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Milwaukiedave wrote: |
| I think it would be too tempting to start changing other things in the Consititution if they started messing with one issue. It could open up a whole new can of worms (so to speak). |
Fear is rarely a good reason not to do something.
As far as proportional allocation, how is that any different than one man, one vote? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Milwaukiedave
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Location: Goseong
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 10:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I never said that my idea would be one person one vote. Personally I'm not a huge fan of the electoral college, but I think any process to change it leaves it open to one party or the other making changes that could benefit them.
The reason I said I'm fearful of changing the consitution, is that things could be put in, like limiting civil liberties even more then they already are. There is a whole host of possible abuses that could happen is modern day politicans start screwing with that document. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 4:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Milwaukiedave wrote: |
I never said that my idea would be one person one vote. Personally I'm not a huge fan of the electoral college, but I think any process to change it leaves it open to one party or the other making changes that could benefit them.
The reason I said I'm fearful of changing the consitution, is that things could be put in, like limiting civil liberties even more then they already are. There is a whole host of possible abuses that could happen is modern day politicans start screwing with that document. |
I understood your comments. My comments stand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 9:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Milwaukiedave wrote: |
I never said that my idea would be one person one vote. Personally I'm not a huge fan of the electoral college, but I think any process to change it leaves it open to one party or the other making changes that could benefit them.
The reason I said I'm fearful of changing the consitution, is that things could be put in, like limiting civil liberties even more then they already are. There is a whole host of possible abuses that could happen is modern day politicans start screwing with that document. |
That's another good point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yes, it is. There is nothing wrong with caution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Yes, it is. There is nothing wrong with caution. |
Tell that to people trying to mitigate climate change who have been blocked for decades from doing so by a tiny band of bought and paid for "scientists" and lying, pos politicians.
Caution is only useful so far as it doesn't obstruct needed action. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate,
tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. "
Samuel Adams
There was a movement to hold a Con-Con several years back for the
sole purpose of re-writing the constitution to incorporate all the
amendments into the articles, however there was never a consensus as
to what changes could be made in gender references and other minor
details the movement ran into roadblocks.
Simple changes are difficult.
Legislation, Judicial review and precedence are the powers of bi-party
politics, and have overridden the ratification powers of the states long
ago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Let's discuss the problems replacing the EC with a direct vote.
From Alexander Hamilton:
"[t]he ancient democracies, in which the people themselves deliberated,
never possessed one feature of good government. Their very character
was tyranny; their figure, deformity."
The tyranny of the masses.
Does the EC really check that tyranny?
Aren't the checks and balance of the bicameral legislature strong enough
to counter this voter tyranny without the EC?
What other problems arethere inherent in the direct vote?
Can these problems be prevented with a run off election format?
Will this diminish or strengthen party politics or lead to factional chaos? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cbclark4 wrote: |
Let's discuss the problems replacing the EC with a direct vote.
From Alexander Hamilton:
"[t]he ancient democracies, in which the people themselves deliberated,
never possessed one feature of good government. Their very character
was tyranny; their figure, deformity."
The tyranny of the masses.
Does the EC really check that tyranny?
Aren't the checks and balance of the bicameral legislature strong enough
to counter this voter tyranny without the EC?
What other problems arethere inherent in the direct vote?
Can these problems be prevented with a run off election format?
Will this diminish or strengthen party politics or lead to factional chaos? |
He wasn't referring to the election of a president, or a figure like one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 2:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Let's discuss the problems replacing the EC with a direct vote.
|
Good idea.
Some of the problems that I see:
#1. It would undermine the republican structure of the Constitution. Those who want us to transform into a democracy, rather than the republic we presently have, don't see this as a problem.
I think it would weaken the States within the federal structure. Right now, candidates must visit most of the States in the primary/caucus system and try to win in each State. In direct election, any smart candidate would go where the people are, basically California and New York.
Retaining the federal structure is important.
#2. It would raise the question: Why don't we elect a Senate based on population size? Slippery slope argument, I know, but there is a certain amount of pressure to do this now. Those forces would be strengthened.
#3. Direct election might encourage 3rd parties and end up producing a series of minority presidents. The media often errs in inviting fringe whackos on to talk shows in the interest of 'hearing all sides' and thereby lending credence to slugs who should stay under their rock.
#4. The Electoral College lends an air of legitimacy to candidates who win in very close elections. Normally, the Electoral vote skews the outcome to be even more in favor of the winner than the popular vote. This would be lacking if we were to go to direct election. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
