Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ben on November 27, 2017, 11:31:33 AM
-
More PR for Trump 2020:
https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2017/11/27/lowest-of-the-low-could-joy-reid-be-any-nastier-or-more-hateful-to-rural-america/
I fear for the time that these people get their wish and we no longer have an electoral college. I think I would seriously consider ex-pating. Or just hiding out in a cabin well into the "rural minority" area and laying low and under the radar.
-
She is citing claims that 70% of the population will only have 30% of weight in the electoral college in 2040.
There are a lot more concerning projections that will occur before 2040 that ought to have people up in arms. I'm not the least bit surprised that this (unlikely projection) is what the leftists are concerned about.
-
There was recently a map on facebook (which I can't find) showing the population of Los Angeles County verses the rest of the United States.
LA County alone has a population greater than, IIRC, 43 states. The only states with total population greater than LA County are: New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Texas, and Florida.
Of course, California has a population greater than LA County, but since LA County is in possibly the most liberal state in the nation...
Anyway, for that reason alone, I don't fear the demise of the Electoral College anytime... ever, really.
To eliminate the Electoral College would require a Constitutional Amendment.
Ratification of a proposed amendment requires approve of 38 states.
There's no way in hell that 38 states would ever agree to the irrelevancy that such a change would create.
The Framers were smart men. They knew that without the Electoral College it would be mob rule with the largest states running roughshod over the smallest. That reality really hasn't changed, and that's why I no fear for the future of the Electoral College, no matter how much the liberals whine.
-
The Framers were smart men. They knew that without the Electoral College it would be mob rule with the largest states running roughshod over the smallest. That reality really hasn't changed, and that's why I no fear for the future of the Electoral College, no matter how much the liberals whine.
Certainly articles like this should reinforce the need for, and wise choice that the Electoral College is. Including for the "Hillary won" progressives that would like to see it gone. Because much like the "Reid Rule", things like this can come back to bite you in the ass.
The Framers were indeed visionaries who saw far into their future. Sadly, our national leaders today only see as far as today. That's both sides of the aisle. I saw Trump was also looking for a simple majority on some issues because he wants to get his agenda passed. The Framers were patient men who saw beyond "I want it now".
-
Certainly articles like this should reinforce the need for, and wise choice that the Electoral College is. Including for the "Hillary won" progressives that would like to see it gone. Because much like the "Reid Rule", things like this can come back to bite you in the ass.
The Framers were indeed visionaries who saw far into their future. Sadly, our national leaders today only see as far as today. That's both sides of the aisle. I saw Trump was also looking for a simple majority on some issues because he wants to get his agenda passed. The Framers were patient men who saw beyond "I want it now".
But there's the rub.
You're talking fast acts at a National level. The power in amending the Constitution lies not at the National level, but at the state level, and it's far, far different dynamic at work there than in Washington.
To approve such a change requires the agreement of those who are NOT at the national level -- the people from, say, Kansas who have to ask themselves "Does such a move really benefit Kansas?"
Only a fool or a madman could actually say yes, it benefits Kansas to throw off the electoral college and allow every national election to be decided by 6 or 7 states. Every presidential election. Forever.
This is the second time we've played this out in my lifetime, and I think the 4th time in our history.
This year, and in 2000, the results were followed by calls for elimination of the Electoral College, screechy speeches about "democracy denied," blah blah blah, and even a couple of half hearted attempts at introducing proposed Constitutional Amendments. Not sure, but the other times were probably similar.
-
Of course, California has a population greater than LA County, but since LA County is in possibly the most liberal state in the nation...
I want to point out that from what I've heard, California is a conservative state outside of LA County, but because they're so huge, it's like how NYC dominates NY politics.
-
There was recently a map on facebook (which I can't find) showing the population of Los Angeles County verses the rest of the United States.
LA County alone has a population greater than, IIRC, 43 states. The only states with total population greater than LA County are: New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Texas, and Florida.
Of course, California has a population greater than LA County, but since LA County is in possibly the most liberal state in the nation...
Anyway, for that reason alone, I don't fear the demise of the Electoral College anytime... ever, really.
To eliminate the Electoral College would require a Constitutional Amendment.
Ratification of a proposed amendment requires approve of 38 states.
There's no way in hell that 38 states would ever agree to the irrelevancy that such a change would create.
The Framers were smart men. They knew that without the Electoral College it would be mob rule with the largest states running roughshod over the smallest. That reality really hasn't changed, and that's why I no fear for the future of the Electoral College, no matter how much the liberals whine.
You mean this one:
(https://i.imgur.com/zkt2BLq.png)
-
But there's the rub.
You're talking fast acts at a National level. The power in amending the Constitution lies not at the National level, but at the state level, and it's far, far different dynamic at work there than in Washington.
Oh, sorry. I was unclear. I was referring more to mindset than to actual legal ability (at least in the case of the Electoral College). Just more that modern politicians, and many voters, are happy to, where they can, go straight to "mob rule majority voting" to win "today" and screw tomorrow.
-
That's the one, Dively. Thanks.
"Just more that modern politicians, and many voters, are happy to, where they can, go straight to "mob rule majority voting" to win "today" and screw tomorrow."
OK, now I get what you're saying.
But, I hate to tell you... it's no different today than it was in 1797, 1807, or whenever.
We like to think of the Framers and their direct successors as altruistic marble godhead ascetics who thought only of the greater common good and nothing of themselves.
Yeah.... no.
They were humans. And quite frankly, they were often complete and total aholes without a shred of compunction about trying to get what they wanted, Constitutional or not.
Case in point, the Alien and Sedition Acts. John Adams, one of the Constitution's biggest proponents, was one of the Alien and Sedition Act's biggest proponents. And so was George Washington.
Then we have Mr. Thomas "Small Government with strictly limited powers is BEST Government" Jefferson...
"Wait, the French want to sell Louisiana to us? HOLY *expletive deleted*ck I WANT IT I WANT IT I WANT IT *expletive deleted*ck THE CONSTITUTION I WANT IT!!!!"
-
I want to point out that from what I've heard, California is a conservative state outside of LA County, but because they're so huge, it's like how NYC dominates NY politics.
I would be curious what percentage of that LA County population are legally registered voters. All of them if Democrats have their way.
-
I want to point out that from what I've heard, California is a conservative state outside of LA County, but because they're so huge, it's like how NYC dominates NY politics.
Sort of. You have to add most of the coastal counties (minus San Diego) to that. In many ways, the farther North you go along the coast, the more progressive it gets. Once you get past San Francisco, it starts to go more hippie than progressive. Inland has generally been conservative -- often very strongly conservative. That's been starting to change. A lot of that is due to the welfare crowd increasing, and they of course generally vote "hand out" i.e., democrat.
-
Sort of. You have to add most of the coastal counties (minus San Diego) to that. In many ways, the farther North you go along the coast, the more progressive it gets. Once you get past San Francisco, it starts to go more hippie than progressive. Inland has generally been conservative -- often very strongly conservative. That's been starting to change. A lot of that is due to the welfare crowd increasing, and they of course generally vote "hand out" i.e., democrat.
That's what happens when the Democrats import a new voter base. That's the plan for the rest of the country, as well.
-
I still don't see what's so bad about 1 person = 1 vote for a national election. It's how all our state and local elections work isn't it? We don't seem to need state/county level systems like the electoral college to prevent "mob rule" when electing governors. I get that in the current political climate it's beneficial, but on an abstract level I just don't see why one person's vote should "count more" than any others when voting for president. I've heard the argument that it helps reduce the impact of shenanigans (no use in the running up the score in a given state) and I do find that a bit more persuasive but I'm still just not sold on it.
-
I still don't see what's so bad about 1 person = 1 vote for a national election. It's how all our state and local elections work isn't it? We don't seem to need state/county level systems like the electoral college to prevent "mob rule" when electing governors. I get that in the current political climate it's beneficial, but on an abstract level I just don't see why one person's vote should "count more" than any others when voting for president. I've heard the argument that it helps reduce the impact of shenanigans (no use in the running up the score in a given state) and I do find that a bit more persuasive but I'm still just not sold on it.
Remember the Florida recounts in the 2000 election? Imagine that on national scale -- it couldn't be done. In a virtual tie, you'd have to recount everything and we would never have the final results.
Also the 2008 Minnesota US senate election recounts show how susceptible the system is to shenanigans. (in case you don't know, the MN Secretary of State stole the election from Norm Coleman on behalf of Al Franken thru the recount process. I may hate Franken but I don't blame him for this one) And that took until July to be resolved.
-
Oh. My. Gosh.
You guys! I had no idea that it was that bad. Large population states are being marginalized, and their citizen trod upon by a rural jack boot! All this talk about the electoral college and the Senate won't fix the problem. It's too conventional. There's only one thing that will help these downtrodden urban dwellers:
We need a whole new group of legislators. We can make a whole new chamber and call it......the Cottage of Folks Like Us or something. And the amount of folks in the Cottage isn't capped. It can grow and grow as we add more people and states. And here's the kicker! The important part! We'll allocate seats in the Cottage of Folks Like Us based on........Population!!! And all laws will have to go through both the Senate and the Cottage! That way states with large populations will finally (!) get representation in Washington commiserate with how many folks live there.
I know, right? Mind. Blown.
-
I still don't see what's so bad about 1 person = 1 vote for a national election. It's how all our state and local elections work isn't it? We don't seem to need state/county level systems like the electoral college to prevent "mob rule" when electing governors. I get that in the current political climate it's beneficial, but on an abstract level I just don't see why one person's vote should "count more" than any others when voting for president. I've heard the argument that it helps reduce the impact of shenanigans (no use in the running up the score in a given state) and I do find that a bit more persuasive but I'm still just not sold on it.
Here's a really god explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6s7jB6-GoU
And yes, I think we should have a statewide electoral college for Governor. To avoid things like "3-County" Quinn ending up as Governor of 102 county Illinois. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
-
More PR for Trump 2020:
https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2017/11/27/lowest-of-the-low-could-joy-reid-be-any-nastier-or-more-hateful-to-rural-america/
I fear for the time that these people get their wish and we no longer have an electoral college. I think I would seriously consider ex-pating. Or just hiding out in a cabin well into the "rural minority" area and laying low and under the radar.
I'm still considering ex pat-ing.
-
Mike Irwin said,
There's no way in hell that 38 states would ever agree to the irrelevancy that such a change would create.
Today.
But they're working diligently at attracting leftists to cities and states to change that dynamic sooner or later. They'd rather see it sooner, but they'll take later.
Terry, 230RN
REF (Example):
https://youtu.be/EaPTweZ2_fI
"Oops, there goes a billion kilowatt dam. 'Cause he had high hopes, he had high hopes...."
-
But there's the rub.
You're talking fast acts at a National level. The power in amending the Constitution lies not at the National level, but at the state level, and it's far, far different dynamic at work there than in Washington.
To approve such a change requires the agreement of those who are NOT at the national level -- the people from, say, Kansas who have to ask themselves "Does such a move really benefit Kansas?"
Only a fool or a madman could actually say yes, it benefits Kansas to throw off the electoral college and allow every national election to be decided by 6 or 7 states. Every presidential election. Forever.
I don't think most people look at the state they live in in that way, and that applies especially to leftists.
I still don't see what's so bad about 1 person = 1 vote for a national election. It's how all our state and local elections work isn't it? We don't seem to need state/county level systems like the electoral college to prevent "mob rule" when electing governors. I get that in the current political climate it's beneficial, but on an abstract level I just don't see why one person's vote should "count more" than any others when voting for president. I've heard the argument that it helps reduce the impact of shenanigans (no use in the running up the score in a given state) and I do find that a bit more persuasive but I'm still just not sold on it.
Because one or two cities shouldn't dominate for the whole country. Goes along with why the House and Senate was set up like it was.
-
I still don't see what's so bad about 1 person = 1 vote for a national election. It's how all our state and local elections work isn't it? We don't seem to need state/county level systems like the electoral college to prevent "mob rule" when electing governors. I get that in the current political climate it's beneficial, but on an abstract level I just don't see why one person's vote should "count more" than any others when voting for president. I've heard the argument that it helps reduce the impact of shenanigans (no use in the running up the score in a given state) and I do find that a bit more persuasive but I'm still just not sold on it.
If you want to live in a Banana Republic, that is how you get one. We have already seen how cheating has happened in recent elections. Part of the reason it doesn't have a bigger effect is because our elections are decentralized. Cheating in California only matters in California. If LA County has 500 million illegal votes, they only get the electoral votes in California. If you centralize it, small scale cheating all over the country would distort our elections in a huge way. It would get to the point that every party and every candidate would be forced to cheat or they would never win anything. Soon we would see the national election server fail every election night before the vote count is finalized.
-
Only a fool or a madman could actually say yes, it benefits Kansas to throw off the electoral college and allow every national election to be decided by 6 or 7 states. Every presidential election. Forever.
The country would dissolve. Because why stick around in a situation where you never get listened to and likely would be repeatedly victimized by the dominant group?
-
Also, IMO I would not be at all surprised to hear that one of the reasons most of our major cities are solidly Democrat is there is small scale cheating going on. There isn't a great deal of turnout in city council and other local elections so someone who could deliver a few hundred votes could get a lot of influence.
-
About the so-called "National Popular Vote"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXnjGD7j2B0
-
Not that long ago we DID have an "electoral college effect" of sorts in the states, but it was ruled illegal because it was not sufficiently "diverse". It was not exactly an electoral college but the effect was similar- all the counties got the same number of representatives.
My old brain cannot remember the details of the act that changed it, but it was to ensure minorities got equal representation. (IE, the cities got more votes(representation) , because their population was higher.
IMO, this was a direct cause of many states going to leftist idiocy. There was no longer enough rural weight to counter act the cities, like Denver, Seattle, Portland etc.
-
Also, IMO I would not be at all surprised to hear that one of the reasons most of our major cities are solidly Democrat is there is small scale cheating going on. There isn't a great deal of turnout in city council and other local elections so someone who could deliver a few hundred votes could get a lot of influence.
I'm of the opinion that cities are solidly Democratic because it's easier for the welfare party to deliver gobs of free *expletive deleted*it more efficiently to larger numbers of people. In other words, if you offer it, they will come.
-
She is citing claims that 70% of the population will only have 30% of weight in the electoral college in 2040.
Which was the exact reason for the institution of the electoral college, to avoid the "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep discussing what's for dinner" syndrome.
-
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep discussing what's for dinner"
Instead we have what? Two sheep and wolf voting on what's for dinner but the wolf's vote counts 2.5x ???
Why should a persons vote be weighted by where they live? You guys talk about cities with the same disdain that democrats talk about rural areas, possibly more.
She is citing claims that 70% of the population will only have 30% of weight in the electoral college in 2040.
I doubt this is true, but let's pretend it is. That's really acceptable to you? If a presidential candidate got 75% of the (real) popular vote, in order to say they should win you'd have to ask where that 75% lived? At what point does such an unbalance become untenable?
-
We're electing a president of several states forming a republic. The college is designed to balance the weight of the states.
-
We're electing a president of several states forming a republic. The college is designed to balance the weight of the states.
In fact in a Confederated Republic, instead of arguing, "One Wyoming voter equals 3.6 California voters", one could argue, "one state, one vote".
-
"I doubt this is true, but let's pretend it is. That's really acceptable to you? If a presidential candidate got 75% of the (real) popular vote, in order to say they should win you'd have to ask where that 75% lived? At what point does such an unbalance become untenable?"
Yes.
No one is forcing the complaining liberals to cluster in a few states, and a few cities. They're diluting their own power, and creating their own imbalance.
As has been noted, the system we have in place was established to prevent a few states from dominating every aspect of electoral life. It's part of the American system of checks and balances.
-
We're electing a president of several states forming a republic. The college is designed to balance the weight of the states.
I don't disagree that it's what we have, I'm just not seeing why it's the best way to do it. When electing a president, why are states the level it should be "balanced" at? A simple popular vote gives every person the same weight, regardless of where they live - I still don't see how that needs any balancing. Why give power to the states when you can give power directly to the individual?
-
No one is forcing the complaining liberals to cluster in a few states, and a few cities. They're diluting their own power, and creating their own imbalance.
I encourage like-minded individuals to cluster in like-minded states. That's one of the neat thing about confederation and states rights. And if, for example, a conservative wants to live in CA to make $200K/yr and suck it up being a minority there, that's their choice. Even if they live in a conservative city/county, the state social/political scene rules. Just like for progressives who live in Austin.
If they later choose to make $75K/yr and move to Utah to be near like-minded people, they get to do that. However if CA, by means of population, suddenly becomes strong enough to tell people in Utah how to live, that's uncool, man.
-
I encourage like-minded individuals to cluster in like-minded states. That's one of the neat thing about states rights. And if, for example, a conservative wants to live in CA to make $200K/yr and suck it up being a minority there, that's their choice. Even if they live in a conservative city/county, the state social/political scene rules. Just like for progressives who live in Austin.
If they later choose to make $75K/yr and move to Utah to be near like-minded people, they get to do that. However if CA, by means of population, suddenly becomes strong enough to tell people in Utah how to live, that's uncool, man.
Friend of mine and Castlekey's is a VERY liberal doctor. She grew up in DC, daughter of very liberal parents, and of course, when she got married and got into practice, she moved right back to DC.
And started bitching about how horrible it was for her to not have representation in Congress.
Castlekey absolutely anchored her when he asked if she was scared when someone held a gun to her head and forced her to buy a half million dollar house in DC and thus deprived her of her rights...
She didn't have much to say to that.
I've always wanted to change DC's "slogan" on its license plates to "Willfully choosing to be unrepresented."
-
I don't disagree that it's what we have, I'm just not seeing why it's the best way to do it. When electing a president, why are states the level it should be "balanced" at? A simple popular vote gives every person the same weight, regardless of where they live - I still don't see how that needs any balancing. Why give power to the states when you can give power to the individual?
The electoral college is not "states." It is based on population, and the number of votes each state has is adjusted periodically based on the census.
https://www.thoughtco.com/electoral-votes-by-state-in-2016-3322035
-
Also, as far as the "unfair" argument made by liberals, they always use CA, NY, and FL as the example states that are "unfairly treated". TX has more people than NY and FL. How come it's not "unfairly treated"? Even by population per electoral vote, it's still higher than FL, but never gets mentioned as getting unfair treatment.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2012/11/presidential_election_a_map_showing_the_vote_power_of_all_50_states.html
https://makehoustongreat.com/2012/10/18/how-many-people-per-electoral-vote/
-
Oh, and back to the OP - Joy Reid doubles down. "Trump is dismantling all the programs that help you." Because all rural residents walk around in old overalls and shoes with holes in them while chewing a piece of straw. Nobody living outside the city can possibly make a living wage. Or be an engineer or a scientist or a doctor or a lawyer. ;/
https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2017/11/28/condescend-much-joy-reid-doubles-down-on-hating-rural-america-claims-trump-is-laughing-at-them/
-
The electoral college is not "states." It is based on population, and the number of votes each state has is adjusted periodically based on the census.
https://www.thoughtco.com/electoral-votes-by-state-in-2016-3322035
Ok, I'm not sure what your point is? It's winner take all (for the most part) at the state level and electors are based off the state's population. It balances the weight of the states. If you'd prefer, I can ask why it should be balanced at the "electoral college" level but the arguments are essentially the same.
-
I'm of the opinion that cities are solidly Democratic because it's easier for the welfare party to deliver gobs of free *expletive deleted*it more efficiently to larger numbers of people. In other words, if you offer it, they will come.
agree.
and because the rural voters generally have more common sense and are more reasonable, they should have greater leverage over their urban liberal counterparts.
-
I think rural will start flipping to the Democrats in the next couple of cycles unless take home pay starts increasing. Especially if the democrats start paying attention to them, back off on banning things and offer pleasing solutions.
-
I think rural will start flipping to the Democrats in the next couple of cycles unless take home pay starts increasing. Especially if the democrats start paying attention to them, back off on banning things and offer pleasing solutions.
Don't worry, the current group of liberals would never do that.
-
Ok, I'm not sure what your point is? It's winner take all (for the most part) at the state level and electors are based off the state's population. It balances the weight of the states. If you'd prefer, I can ask why it should be balanced at the "electoral college" level but the arguments are essentially the same.
DittoHead, the only "unbalance" is that states get a minimum of 3 electoral votes. That is it. The 535 votes are apportioned based on census population counts every 10 years. A state like Wyoming might only get half a vote if it was done directly. However, California gets 50 or so. If California's population doubles and no one else increases, they will get more votes after the next census.
-
I don't disagree that it's what we have, I'm just not seeing why it's the best way to do it. When electing a president, why are states the level it should be "balanced" at? A simple popular vote gives every person the same weight, regardless of where they live - I still don't see how that needs any balancing. Why give power to the states when you can give power directly to the individual?
Individuals did not ratify the Constitution of the United States. States did. That is why we are the United States and not the United Individuals.
-
Don't worry, the current group of liberals would never do that.
maybe a third more centralist party is going to emerge and attract everyone from the middle?
-
Individuals did not ratify the Constitution of the United States. States did. That is why we are the United States and not the United Individuals.
And if we went back to a proper Federal system where the individual would never really care about FedGov except when travelling or doing business across state lines and/or national borders, most people would have a lot fewer complaints.
-
maybe a third mdore centralist party is going to emerge and attract everyone from the middle?
You running? The Democrats are in a suicide pact with their progressive radicals. No Joe Manchin, Jim Webb lukewarm types going to save them. And the other group? Well, we all know their name. Trump is about the worst conservative ever and he might be the first one to ever reduce the size of government.
-
You running?
Honestly I doubt I could survive the social media bullying if I did run. I'm no boy scout, but my closet of skeletons is pretty tiny, so it would be a lot of nit picking mountain out a molehill.
-
Oh come on the campaign ads write themselves. Hugs trees! Gratuitous photo of bird hunting! Minority cab driver! Christ would somebody get this guy back to the tour bus he won't stop hunting!
-
Oh come on the campaign ads write themselves. Hugs trees! Gratuitous photo of bird hunting! Minority cab driver! Christ would somebody get this guy back to the tour bus he won't stop hunting!
:rofl:
Don't forget: he doesn't give a flying f**k about passing any religious litmus tests.
-
I'll see to it that our Illinois members arrange multiple ballots for us to vote for you. And you have got the Iowa caucus locked down, haven't you already had coffee and a casserole with all those people?
-
I'll see to it that our Illinois members arrange multiple ballots for us to vote for you. And you have got the Iowa caucus locked down, haven't you already had coffee and a casserole with all those people?
Pig Roast and Bicycle Ride
-
Ok, I'm not sure what your point is? It's winner take all (for the most part) at the state level and electors are based off the state's population. It balances the weight of the states. If you'd prefer, I can ask why it should be balanced at the "electoral college" level but the arguments are essentially the same.
It's up to each state to decide if its electoral votes are winner-take-all or apportioned according to the popular vote.
Are you aware that in the beginning senators weren't elected by the people at all? As originally established under the Constitution, the House of Representatives was elected by the people, and the Senate was elected by the legislatures of the respective states. I'm still not certain the change to electing senators directly was a good thing (although, in my state, the legislature has been so heavily Democrat for so long that it wouldn't have made any difference for several decades).
-
Are you aware that in the beginning senators weren't elected by the people at all? As originally established under the Constitution, the House of Representatives was elected by the people, and the Senate was elected by the legislatures of the respective states. I'm still not certain the change to electing senators directly was a good thing
I was aware of that, but don't really have a strong opinion on whether that was a good or bad change (although my gut instinct is that it's probably good - the old system seems like senators would be too insulated from the citizenry)
-
I was aware of that, but don't really have a strong opinion on whether that was a good or bad change (although my gut instinct is that it's probably good - the old system seems like senators would be too insulated from the citizenry)
It is my understanding that they were supposed to be more insulated from the citizenry. There likely is some value to having someone in the FedGov looking out for state sovereignty and maybe going against federal mandates to the states. Not sure if that would happen if we went back to that.
-
I was aware of that, but don't really have a strong opinion on whether that was a good or bad change (although my gut instinct is that it's probably good - the old system seems like senators would be too insulated from the citizenry)
That was the intent. The House was supposed to represent the people, the Senate was supposed to represent the states.
-
It is my understanding that they were supposed to be more insulated from the citizenry. There likely is some value to having someone in the FedGov looking out for state sovereignty and maybe going against federal mandates to the states. Not sure if that would happen if we went back to that.
The point in state reps appointing senators was to give the state, as a political entity, political power in Washington D.C. That insured the STATE had a voice. The place for the PEOPLES' VOICE was the House.
Edit
Oooops...Hawkmoon beat me to it. :facepalm:
-
I believe that the "reasoning" behind the change to popularly elected Senators was exactly that: to "enhance" that glorious thing called "democracy." After all, who could possibly argue against each person having a direct vote on everything? Democracy, right?
This was directly opposite to what the original Congress saw as a valuable check against the inherent evils of a pure democracy.
Democracy is doomed from the moment the voters discover that they can vote to get largesse from the public treasury. (I won't put quotes around that because I don't remember who said it, or if it's exact.)
-
Saw this in a thread on Facebook
Conservatism has died on its own. It simply became a platform for money lovers and power grabbers to use. We let them.
-
It's up to each state to decide if its electoral votes are winner-take-all or apportioned according to the popular vote.
Are you aware that in the beginning senators weren't elected by the people at all? As originally established under the Constitution, the House of Representatives was elected by the people, and the Senate was elected by the legislatures of the respective states. I'm still not certain the change to electing senators directly was a good thing (although, in my state, the legislature has been so heavily Democrat for so long that it wouldn't have made any difference for several decades).
[/u]
And in Michigan where we've had 2 Democrat senators for decades, has a mostly Republican legislature for many years.