|
|
Post by elmerfudd on Sept 25, 2024 17:15:34 GMT
Mr. Freon suggested a thread on this subject would be good after reading the following post I made about it in another thread. Mr. Rabbit seemed interested too. So here it is:
The founders' intent was for the voting masses to have as little to do with selection of president, vice-president, and senate as is humanly possible. They feared nothing more than popular election of those offices. When Ben Franklin was asked "Well, Doctor, what kind of government do we have?" He replied "A republic, if we can keep it." And it was internal threats he feared, one of the main ones being the voters. A wise man once said, "none of us is as dumb as all of us."
Their intent was for each state, by whatever means their legislative bodies decided but preferably not by popular vote, to select their electors. Each elector, obviously a white male of substance, would act independently of all the others from his state and vote for one candidate for president. They might confer amongst each other, but in the end there was no requirement that all electors from a state vote for the same guy. Each elector from every state would act in the best interest of the nation as a whole as much as humanly possible. They would be men of character, as uncorruptible and unbiased as is humanly possible. The candidate with the greatest number of votes would be president. Second place would be veep. In cases of a tie, which the founders anticipated would not be rare, the house would decide - each state having ONE vote. There would be no such thing as "pledged electors." The very thought gave them gas.
|
|
freonbale
Legend
Awesome.
Posts: 22,700
Member is Online
|
Post by freonbale on Sept 25, 2024 18:30:28 GMT
Mr. Freon suggested a thread on this subject would be good after reading the following post I made about it in another thread. Mr. Rabbit seemed interested too. So here it is: The founders' intent was for the voting masses to have as little to do with selection of president, vice-president, and senate as is humanly possible. They feared nothing more than popular election of those offices. When Ben Franklin was asked "Well, Doctor, what kind of government do we have?" He replied "A republic, if we can keep it." And it was internal threats he feared, one of the main ones being the voters. A wise man once said, "none of us is as dumb as all of us." Their intent was for each state, by whatever means their legislative bodies decided but preferably not by popular vote, to select their electors. Each elector, obviously a white male of substance, would act independently of all the others from his state and vote for one candidate for president. They might confer amongst each other, but in the end there was no requirement that all electors from a state vote for the same guy. Each elector from every state would act in the best interest of the nation as a whole as much as humanly possible. They would be men of character, as uncorruptible and unbiased as is humanly possible. The candidate with the greatest number of votes would be president. Second place would be veep. In cases of a tie, which the founders anticipated would not be rare, the house would decide - each state having ONE vote. There would be no such thing as "pledged electors." The very thought gave them gas. I think the most interesting part of your interpretation (because many would disagree with certain parts of it), is that the electors were themselves, vetted as people of 'quality'. What that even means today is debatable. Someone like Ted Cruz is actually considered respectable by his base, and while he is not an elector, I would argue that the process of selecting him is more demanding than selecting the actual electors (at least in most states). So if the electors are not vetted, if they are basically selected, and their actions are more a process than an individual selection of who would be the best candidate for president, then we have a broken system, by the standards of the founders. Freon |
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,497
|
Post by thor on Sept 25, 2024 23:21:13 GMT
Mr. Freon suggested a thread on this subject would be good after reading the following post I made about it in another thread. Mr. Rabbit seemed interested too. So here it is: The founders' intent was for the voting masses to have as little to do with selection of president, vice-president, and senate as is humanly possible. They feared nothing more than popular election of those offices. When Ben Franklin was asked "Well, Doctor, what kind of government do we have?" He replied "A republic, if we can keep it." And it was internal threats he feared, one of the main ones being the voters. A wise man once said, "none of us is as dumb as all of us." Their intent was for each state, by whatever means their legislative bodies decided but preferably not by popular vote, to select their electors. Each elector, obviously a white male of substance, would act independently of all the others from his state and vote for one candidate for president. They might confer amongst each other, but in the end there was no requirement that all electors from a state vote for the same guy. Each elector from every state would act in the best interest of the nation as a whole as much as humanly possible. They would be men of character, as uncorruptible and unbiased as is humanly possible. The candidate with the greatest number of votes would be president. Second place would be veep. In cases of a tie, which the founders anticipated would not be rare, the house would decide - each state having ONE vote. There would be no such thing as "pledged electors." The very thought gave them gas. I would say that the EC in it's current form is in need of modification. Having a nation-wide election come down to how people in 6-8 states (and actually, by some of the COUNTIES in those states) vote is rather absurd. It is not an accurate representation of the will of the electorate. Assigning electors by the winner of the vote in each congressional district, while a good idea in theory, is still far too vulnerable to fuckery like gerrymandering. I would suggest something along the lines of electors being assigned by a percentage of the popular vote in the state. That way, every vote, in every state, matters. There are plenty of Republicans in states like CA and NY, and plenty of Dems in TX and FL, to name a few. We might get the occasional third-party elector as well. |
|
freonbale
Legend
Awesome.
Posts: 22,700
Member is Online
|
Post by freonbale on Sept 25, 2024 23:54:01 GMT
Mr. Freon suggested a thread on this subject would be good after reading the following post I made about it in another thread. Mr. Rabbit seemed interested too. So here it is: The founders' intent was for the voting masses to have as little to do with selection of president, vice-president, and senate as is humanly possible. They feared nothing more than popular election of those offices. When Ben Franklin was asked "Well, Doctor, what kind of government do we have?" He replied "A republic, if we can keep it." And it was internal threats he feared, one of the main ones being the voters. A wise man once said, "none of us is as dumb as all of us." Their intent was for each state, by whatever means their legislative bodies decided but preferably not by popular vote, to select their electors. Each elector, obviously a white male of substance, would act independently of all the others from his state and vote for one candidate for president. They might confer amongst each other, but in the end there was no requirement that all electors from a state vote for the same guy. Each elector from every state would act in the best interest of the nation as a whole as much as humanly possible. They would be men of character, as uncorruptible and unbiased as is humanly possible. The candidate with the greatest number of votes would be president. Second place would be veep. In cases of a tie, which the founders anticipated would not be rare, the house would decide - each state having ONE vote. There would be no such thing as "pledged electors." The very thought gave them gas. I would say that the EC in it's current form is in need of modification. Having a nation-wide election come down to how people in 6-8 states (and actually, by some of the COUNTIES in those states) vote is rather absurd. It is not an accurate representation of the will of the electorate. Assigning electors by the winner of the vote in each congressional district, while a good idea in theory, is still far too vulnerable to fuckery like gerrymandering. I would suggest something along the lines of electors being assigned by a percentage of the popular vote in the state. That way, every vote, in every state, matters. There are plenty of Republicans in states like CA and NY, and plenty of Dems in TX and FL, to name a few. We might get the occasional third-party elector as well. The OP's point is that the founders did not want the election to be 'the will of the electorate'. They only wanted 'quality' people actually deciding. So the question is, should that still be the case? Do we follow what the founders wanted, and how do we determine 'quality'? Freon |
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,497
|
Post by thor on Sept 26, 2024 2:41:11 GMT
I would say that the EC in it's current form is in need of modification. Having a nation-wide election come down to how people in 6-8 states (and actually, by some of the COUNTIES in those states) vote is rather absurd. It is not an accurate representation of the will of the electorate. Assigning electors by the winner of the vote in each congressional district, while a good idea in theory, is still far too vulnerable to fuckery like gerrymandering. I would suggest something along the lines of electors being assigned by a percentage of the popular vote in the state. That way, every vote, in every state, matters. There are plenty of Republicans in states like CA and NY, and plenty of Dems in TX and FL, to name a few. We might get the occasional third-party elector as well. The OP's point is that the founders did not want the election to be 'the will of the electorate'. They only wanted 'quality' people actually deciding. So the question is, should that still be the case? Do we follow what the founders wanted, and how do we determine 'quality'? Freon Meh. The Framers are dead, and they aren't coming back. The also lived in a VERY different America. Looking at the Federalist Papers and trying to determine what James Madison would think about ChatGPT is retarded. While many of their ideas are timeless, some aren't, and they certainly weren't infallible. Trying to shoehorn 18th Century reality into the 21st Century is the cause of a great many of our problems today. In many ways, we try to look at the Constitution the same way Fundies look at the Bible. Often for the same reasons. |
|
freonbale
Legend
Awesome.
Posts: 22,700
Member is Online
|
Post by freonbale on Sept 26, 2024 2:48:42 GMT
The OP's point is that the founders did not want the election to be 'the will of the electorate'. They only wanted 'quality' people actually deciding. So the question is, should that still be the case? Do we follow what the founders wanted, and how do we determine 'quality'? Freon Meh. The Framers are dead, and they aren't coming back. The also lived in a VERY different America. Looking at the Federalist Papers and trying to determine what James Madison would think about ChatGPT is retarded. While many of their ideas are timeless, some aren't, and they certainly weren't infallible. Trying to shoehorn 18th Century reality into the 21st Century is the cause of a great many of our problems today. In many ways, we try to look at the Constitution the same way Fundies look at the Bible. Often for the same reasons. I agree with you, but the problem is those Federalist Papers lovers vote, and your argument is not compelling to them. So unless you have a better argument, we will continue to have to contend with their deranged and outdated, nay, CONSERVATIVE, points of view. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by Lomelis on Sept 26, 2024 4:41:12 GMT
Mr. Freon suggested a thread on this subject would be good after reading the following post I made about it in another thread. Mr. Rabbit seemed interested too. So here it is: The founders' intent was for the voting masses to have as little to do with selection of president, vice-president, and senate as is humanly possible. They feared nothing more than popular election of those offices. When Ben Franklin was asked "Well, Doctor, what kind of government do we have?" He replied "A republic, if we can keep it." And it was internal threats he feared, one of the main ones being the voters. A wise man once said, "none of us is as dumb as all of us." Their intent was for each state, by whatever means their legislative bodies decided but preferably not by popular vote, to select their electors. Each elector, obviously a white male of substance, would act independently of all the others from his state and vote for one candidate for president. They might confer amongst each other, but in the end there was no requirement that all electors from a state vote for the same guy. Each elector from every state would act in the best interest of the nation as a whole as much as humanly possible. They would be men of character, as uncorruptible and unbiased as is humanly possible. The candidate with the greatest number of votes would be president. Second place would be veep. In cases of a tie, which the founders anticipated would not be rare, the house would decide - each state having ONE vote. There would be no such thing as "pledged electors." The very thought gave them gas. I wish we would go back to the original intent of the electors. That the states choose electors who are actually free to cast the vote for President. Preferably the people of a congrsessional district would choose their elector in a popular vote. The electors would be the only people voting for an actual Presidential candidate and it would happen when they all gathered in Washington or remotely if it can be secure. We would no longer be voting for a President in November but for an elector. It would also probably be a significant blow to national political parties and the power they have over limiting the influence of independent and third party candidates. |
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,591
|
Post by bama beau on Sept 26, 2024 4:48:13 GMT
Mr. Freon suggested a thread on this subject would be good after reading the following post I made about it in another thread. Mr. Rabbit seemed interested too. So here it is: The founders' intent was for the voting masses to have as little to do with selection of president, vice-president, and senate as is humanly possible. They feared nothing more than popular election of those offices. When Ben Franklin was asked "Well, Doctor, what kind of government do we have?" He replied "A republic, if we can keep it." And it was internal threats he feared, one of the main ones being the voters. A wise man once said, "none of us is as dumb as all of us." Their intent was for each state, by whatever means their legislative bodies decided but preferably not by popular vote, to select their electors. Each elector, obviously a white male of substance, would act independently of all the others from his state and vote for one candidate for president. They might confer amongst each other, but in the end there was no requirement that all electors from a state vote for the same guy. Each elector from every state would act in the best interest of the nation as a whole as much as humanly possible. They would be men of character, as uncorruptible and unbiased as is humanly possible. The candidate with the greatest number of votes would be president. Second place would be veep. In cases of a tie, which the founders anticipated would not be rare, the house would decide - each state having ONE vote. There would be no such thing as "pledged electors." The very thought gave them gas. I wish we would go back to the original intent of the electors. That the states choose electors who are actually free to cast the vote for President. Preferably the people of a congrsessional district would choose their elector in a popular vote. The electors would be the only people voting for an actual Presidential candidate and it would happen when they all gathered in Washington or remotely if it can be secure. We would no longer be voting for a President in November but for an elector. It would also probably be a significant blow to national political parties and the power they have over limiting the influence of independent and third party candidates. Amazing that you can't sense autocracy coming at you from all directions. trumP isn't making three parties out of two. He's trying to make only one. |
|
|
|
Post by Lomelis on Sept 26, 2024 7:23:50 GMT
I wish we would go back to the original intent of the electors. That the states choose electors who are actually free to cast the vote for President. Preferably the people of a congrsessional district would choose their elector in a popular vote. The electors would be the only people voting for an actual Presidential candidate and it would happen when they all gathered in Washington or remotely if it can be secure. We would no longer be voting for a President in November but for an elector. It would also probably be a significant blow to national political parties and the power they have over limiting the influence of independent and third party candidates. Amazing that you can't sense autocracy coming at you from all directions. trumP isn't making three parties out of two. He's trying to make only one. I don't expect a politician to try to expand his competition. I'm talking about the way our Constitution intended the President to be chosen. Trump is a byproduct, a reaction, to the system. We already had Trump as President, he was no more autocratic than Biden or any of the Presidents over the last several decades. He's a dude running for President that's all he is. He is a threat to the establishment and to the permanent unnaccountable unelected bureaucracy. What you support is a one party state led by whoever the party elites choose to lead behind close doors. Where the President is but a figurehead beholden to the party and an unelected bureaucratic state runs everything without our input. That is far more dangerous than 4 years of Trump. |
|
|
|
Post by stugatze on Sept 26, 2024 8:02:46 GMT
Amazing that you can't sense autocracy coming at you from all directions. trumP isn't making three parties out of two. He's trying to make only one. I don't expect a politician to try to expand his competition. I'm talking about the way our Constitution intended the President to be chosen. Trump is a byproduct, a reaction, to the system. We already had Trump as President, he was no more autocratic than Biden or any of the Presidents over the last several decades. He's a dude running for President that's all he is. He is a threat to the establishment and to the permanent unnaccountable unelected bureaucracy. What you support is a one party state led by whoever the party elites choose to lead behind close doors. Where the President is but a figurehead beholden to the party and an unelected bureaucratic state runs everything without our input. That is far more dangerous than 4 years of Trump.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Very very ... well said and very accurate as well!   |
|
|
|
Post by elmerfudd on Sept 26, 2024 16:27:46 GMT
Heavens, Lomelis! You got a "very accurate and well said" from Stugatze! You have my sympathy.
But you did hit a homerun (IMO) with this:
===================================
I wish we would go back to the original intent of the electors. That the states choose electors who are actually free to cast the vote for President. Preferably the people of a congrsessional district would choose their elector in a popular vote. The electors would be the only people voting for an actual Presidential candidate and it would happen when they all gathered in Washington or remotely if it can be secure. We would no longer be voting for a President in November but for an elector.
It would also probably be a significant blow to national political parties and the power they have over limiting the influence of independent and third party candidates.
===================================
That last sentence is why it won't happen. We are already voting not for a president but for electors. The problem is they are pledged electors. Electors for Trump vs electors for Harris coming up. It might just as well say "electoral votes for Trump" and "electoral votes for Harris." The people in those positions are irrelevant.
There is no going back to the founders' intent. That ship sailed in the early 1800's and sank, leaving not so much as an oil slick for two reasons: (1) it was a wooden ship propelled by wind and (2) it cannot be recovered. It is gone. The fantasy, for that's what it turned out to be, of the founders' vision for electing a president was destroyed by the voters because "none of us is as dumb as all of us."
So we're stuck with the only betterment being popular vote. We're also stuck with the electoral vote system because it's in the constitution. Yes, it can be amended but easier would be this: allocate electoral votes by popular vote within each state. Each state has the power to do this now. The problem is getting all states to do it, again because "none of us is as dumb as all of us."
|
|
|
|
Post by HolyMoly on Sept 26, 2024 21:33:00 GMT
Get rid of the idiotic EC and go to a national popular vote, you know popular vote,
the way we elect every other political office. Of course this has a miniscule chance
of ever happening. That doesn't make it a bad idea.
|
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,591
|
Post by bama beau on Sept 28, 2024 4:42:11 GMT
Amazing that you can't sense autocracy coming at you from all directions. trumP isn't making three parties out of two. He's trying to make only one. I don't expect a politician to try to expand his competition. I'm talking about the way our Constitution intended the President to be chosen. Trump is a byproduct, a reaction, to the system. We already had Trump as President, he was no more autocratic than Biden or any of the Presidents over the last several decades. He's a dude running for President that's all he is. He is a threat to the establishment and to the permanent unnaccountable unelected bureaucracy. What you support is a one party state led by whomever the party elites choose to lead behind close doors. Where the President is but a figurehead beholden to the party and an unelected bureaucratic state runs everything without our input. That is far more dangerous than 4 years of Trump. If that is what you believe about me, then that is the root of our differences. |
|
|
|
Post by Lomelis on Sept 28, 2024 7:45:00 GMT
Heavens, Lomelis! You got a "very accurate and well said" from Stugatze! You have my sympathy. But you did hit a homerun (IMO) with this: =================================== I wish we would go back to the original intent of the electors. That the states choose electors who are actually free to cast the vote for President. Preferably the people of a congrsessional district would choose their elector in a popular vote. The electors would be the only people voting for an actual Presidential candidate and it would happen when they all gathered in Washington or remotely if it can be secure. We would no longer be voting for a President in November but for an elector. It would also probably be a significant blow to national political parties and the power they have over limiting the influence of independent and third party candidates. =================================== That last sentence is why it won't happen. We are already voting not for a president but for electors. The problem is they are pledged electors. Electors for Trump vs electors for Harris coming up. It might just as well say "electoral votes for Trump" and "electoral votes for Harris." The people in those positions are irrelevant. There is no going back to the founders' intent. That ship sailed in the early 1800's and sank, leaving not so much as an oil slick for two reasons: (1) it was a wooden ship propelled by wind and (2) it cannot be recovered. It is gone. The fantasy, for that's what it turned out to be, of the founders' vision for electing a president was destroyed by the voters because "none of us is as dumb as all of us." So we're stuck with the only betterment being popular vote. We're also stuck with the electoral vote system because it's in the constitution. Yes, it can be amended but easier would be this: allocate electoral votes by popular vote within each state. Each state has the power to do this now. The problem is getting all states to do it, again because "none of us is as dumb as all of us." Yes unfortunately it ain't going to happen. |
|
|
|
Post by Lomelis on Sept 28, 2024 7:56:05 GMT
I don't expect a politician to try to expand his competition. I'm talking about the way our Constitution intended the President to be chosen. Trump is a byproduct, a reaction, to the system. We already had Trump as President, he was no more autocratic than Biden or any of the Presidents over the last several decades. He's a dude running for President that's all he is. He is a threat to the establishment and to the permanent unnaccountable unelected bureaucracy. What you support is a one party state led by whomever the party elites choose to lead behind close doors. Where the President is but a figurehead beholden to the party and an unelected bureaucratic state runs everything without our input. That is far more dangerous than 4 years of Trump. If that is what you believe about me, then that is the root of our differences. Do you support Kamala as the Democrat nominee even though there was no democratic process to make her the nominee and plan to vote for her anyways? |
|
|
|
Post by Greg55_99 on Sept 28, 2024 11:37:40 GMT
If that is what you believe about me, then that is the root of our differences. Do you support Kamala as the Democrat nominee even though there was no democratic process to make her the nominee and plan to vote for her anyways? I do, and you need to turn off that Fox news bullshit. She's the Dem candidate. Period. Greg |
|
|
|
Post by elmerfudd on Sept 28, 2024 14:55:08 GMT
The founders hated the democratic process and selecting presidents in any shape former fashion. At least we can go back to that
|
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,591
|
Post by bama beau on Sept 28, 2024 15:01:06 GMT
If that is what you believe about me, then that is the root of our differences. Do you support Kamala as the Democrat nominee even though there was no democratic process to make her the nominee and plan to vote for her anyways? Something like 100 million votes have been cast for Harris to take Biden's place should he falter. I'm good w/that. |
|
RWB
Legend
Posts: 12,820
|
Post by RWB on Sept 28, 2024 17:02:11 GMT
Do you support Kamala as the Democrat nominee even though there was no democratic process to make her the nominee and plan to vote for her anyways? I do, and you need to turn off that Fox news bullshit. She's the Dem candidate. Period. Greg problem is the voters didn't have a say so in camel toe harris being the nominee 🙄 |
|
RWB
Legend
Posts: 12,820
|
Post by RWB on Sept 28, 2024 17:03:57 GMT
Mr. Freon suggested a thread on this subject would be good after reading the following post I made about it in another thread. Mr. Rabbit seemed interested too. So here it is: The founders' intent was for the voting masses to have as little to do with selection of president, vice-president, and senate as is humanly possible. They feared nothing more than popular election of those offices. When Ben Franklin was asked "Well, Doctor, what kind of government do we have?" He replied "A republic, if we can keep it." And it was internal threats he feared, one of the main ones being the voters. A wise man once said, "none of us is as dumb as all of us." Their intent was for each state, by whatever means their legislative bodies decided but preferably not by popular vote, to select their electors. Each elector, obviously a white male of substance, would act independently of all the others from his state and vote for one candidate for president. They might confer amongst each other, but in the end there was no requirement that all electors from a state vote for the same guy. Each elector from every state would act in the best interest of the nation as a whole as much as humanly possible. They would be men of character, as uncorruptible and unbiased as is humanly possible. The candidate with the greatest number of votes would be president. Second place would be veep. In cases of a tie, which the founders anticipated would not be rare, the house would decide - each state having ONE vote. There would be no such thing as "pledged electors." The very thought gave them gas. each state should get one vote no matter if it's California or Wyoming |
|
