Faithless Electors Regain Legitimacy

I mentioned it above, JayDee.
 
I mentioned it above, JayDee.
Ope, you did. My bad.

I'm a bit hesitant about that, the Senate was created through multiple compromises between big and small states and it has done a good job giving each state equal representation.

If each State was entirely separate and independent, I would agree wholeheartedly, but since each state is interdependent on the other, I'm a bit more skeptical.
 
A very apropos article I just saw on NYT --

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/27/opinion/aoc-crenshaw-republicans-democracy.html

These origins are important. If there’s substance behind “We’re a republic, not a democracy,” it’s not as a description of American government. There’s really no difference, in the present, between a “republic” and a “democracy”: Both connote systems of representation in which sovereignty and authority derive from the public at large.

The point of the slogan isn’t to describe who we are, but to claim and co-opt the founding for right-wing politics — to naturalize political inequality and make it the proper order of things. What lies behind that quip, in other words, is an impulse against democratic representation. It is part and parcel of the drive to make American government a closed domain for a select, privileged few.
 
I'll read more into the article, but from the excerpt itself that you posted.

Democracy: All courses of action decided by the public at large (treaties, amendments, laws, declarations of war, trade, etc)

Republic: All courses of action decided by a small group on behalf of a larger population.

The purpose of the difference is to prevent a mob from controlling the country. Focus the power to individuals who must act on their people's behalf rather then lending to the voice of millions and ending up with the French Revolution.

Okay:

This is after reading the article. I certainly see what they're saying. Athenian Democracy in which all powers are distributed equally amongst the people and every person has the right to voice their opinions before an assembly of their peers vs Representative Democracy in which a few exercise their power on behalf of a larger population.

It still is, however, representative. Our system was designed as a tiered system. In which States derive their power from the Federal Government and Local Government derives their power from the State. That is why the original design was that people popularly elected their State representatives and those States would select who their Senators would be.

The House of Representatives was designed to incorporate those ideas of representative democracy in which seats are allocated based on population. It is for that reason that Congressmen were designed to be directly elected by the masses as they are directly answerable to the people while the Senators are subject to the will of their State.

The same goes for the President. The Electoral college was designed to exercise the will of each individual state in accordance with its needs. However, the Founding Fathers were aware that, if they allocated votes purely by population, larger states would still dictate the elections. That's why each State has a minimum of three while still allocating Electoral votes by population so that larger states still get more votes.

If you ask me, no matter which way you put it, the system will be flawed. Whether it's an Electoral College or popular vote. My preferred method would be to reserve two of the votes for whoever wins the state as a whole and the remaining Electoral votes are decided via local elections restricted to a persons district. Basically what Maine and Nebraska do.

Even I have to admit the winner take all method is stupid.
 
Last edited:
Democracy: All courses of action decided by the public at large (treaties, amendments, laws, declarations of war, trade, etc)

Republic: All courses of action decided by a small group on behalf of a larger population.

That definition of "democracy" was used at the time of the Federalist Papers, but it's not current usage. For that concept, people say "direct democracy" and that's not what anyone in this thread is advocating.

Your definition of "republic" could just as easily describe "representative democracy". I think you (and others, as per the article) get too caught up with the specific wordings instead of dealing with the actual ethics of our electoral structure. It's a redirection --

Also excerpted from that NYT article:
In more modern terms, the founders feared “direct democracy” and accounted for its dangers with a system of “representative democracy.” Yes, this “republic” had counter-majoritarian aspects, like equal representation of states in the Senate, the presidential veto and the Supreme Court. But it was not designed for minority rule.

And minority rule is exactly what has happened over time, with self-sorting between states increasing the power of rural conservative states, with house gerrymandering, and with increasing electoral distortion by the Electoral College (https://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/presidents-winning-without-popular-vote/) --
 
I agree that the First-Past-the-Post method of election is very poor, especially at representing a large variety of political nuances. It basically cements a two-party system and diminishes the power of marginalized groups or niche interests. I concur that moving to a more representative style of election (i.e. the voting itself) is also a positive way to move forward.

That being said, I understand why the Constitution has such an influential "Upper house" where states are counted equally. I'm just saying that the reasons why the body was originally created are no longer applicable and, in the absence of those pressing factors (state unity and "buy-in"), it's overall a bad idea for our current political needs. It distorted popular representation then too, but the need to get all the states to have full support for the new Union (which was much more federalized than the Articles of Confederation, states had to give up much more power than they originally had intended around the time of the Declaration of Independence) was more important than the distortionary effects it might have on their form of representative democracy. They also thought that their other methods of tamping down "factions" and their system of checks and balances could outweigh some of those issues. For the first few elections, it seemed to work, no political parties arose and "learned men" were creating the laws and deciding on the Executive leader. Then political parties arose and began to shape and abuse the tools of power and led to the "factionalism" that the Federalist Papers warned about. And over time, with the political maneuvering that came with the Missouri compromise and Westward expansion, the creation or admission of states became just another political tool to use for control of the Senate. Even now we talk about possibly admitting Puerto Rico and DC as possible states, but people balk because of the amount of influence they would gain in the Senate.

We've come to the point where we're flat-out denying representation to millions of people simply because we fear the distortionary effects it would have on the Senate. It's time to put away the excuse that the Senate must have equal votes for all states, because the political necessity that was present in 1787 is just no longer an overriding factor when compared to the imbalance it has on popular representation.
 
remaining Electoral votes are decided via local elections restricted to a persons district

I know Maine and Nebraska do this currently and it hasn't had too much effect yet, but if Electoral votes are determined by state districts, then we get back into the problem of gerrymandering, where states can draw their districts to maximize the political effect of their electoral votes. No bueno.

But I do agree, in principle, that breaking down the Electoral Votes and allowing them to be distributed based on the statewide popular vote would probably be a better method, but at that point, I have to wonder why we're even bothering with the facade of Electoral Votes, if they're being pegged to population then. Why not just move to a pure popular vote --
 
Last edited:
Back
Top