deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jun 26, 2011 10:30:30 GMT -5
In my estimation..IMHO of course...Naaaaa. The reason I post the question, after just listening to Fareed Zackariah's Sunday show, there was a short segment on the infallibility of the US constitution.. While we are a young country compared to so many, our Constitution is the oldest continuous one in existence with it seems all or most countries of the Globe, granted with I think 27 or so amendments. They had asked a question of ideas to be sent in for items , suggestions, to be removed , added, changed, in our Constitution the past week and they got the largest influx of ideas by their audience by far of all those questions every asked, ranging from the interesting to the, for some , illogical. For example, Zakaria to be limited to two idiotic ideas a week...[possible not a bad idea ] However two of those discussed tweaked my interest..the Electorial College and the Senate. First the Senate. The reason for the two seats per State was to protect the rights of the smaller states from being overwhelmed by the larger ones, at the time, New York, Penn, Virginia and Massachusetts.. Which gives California today, with 36 million citizens two Senators..the same representation of a smaller state, I think it was Nevada that was mentioned , possible another one, not important which one, who has only 400,000 people as citizens. To me , doesn't compute. The other biggie was the electorial college. Now , because of the electorial college, basically all campaigning is done in a hand ful of States, all the others pretty much irrelevant.. Even a major State, population wise, such as California, for the most part , Republicans concede and spend very little time, $, there , the same with New York, also Major key states..Florida, and some major Midwestern States, think Penn too..all efforts are put into these key States, all the rest, the populace, pretty much ignored . Texas too, big population, Dems rarely spend much time there..it's going Pub..Same with all of New England..ok, possible New hampshire..but over all..going the way of the Dems. Both these areas I found interesting to possible change. Do away with the Electorial College, and in the Senate, give more representation for the people , two Senators representing 36 million, and two senators representing 400,000, to me, just does not compute...any one else have any ideas and thoughts?.
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Jun 26, 2011 10:39:34 GMT -5
Even the Founders did not think that the Constitution was infalliable; it's why we were given the ability to amend it. Unfortunately, many people think that because the Constitution is not perfect that it's ok for a judge to mangle it to say what he or she thinks it should say.
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Jun 26, 2011 10:45:42 GMT -5
So, are you suggesting that the President be elected strictly on a popular vote? I wonder if that would make them more or less likely to campaign in those larger states.
California has tons of electoral votes because of their populace so it might still make sense to spend a large amount of time there compared to crisscrossing one of the large states on the interior with a sparse population, for example.
Not saying this would happen, just speculating.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jun 26, 2011 10:45:52 GMT -5
...and whoever said that perfection is static? ...the genius of the constitution is that it can be changed...
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Jun 26, 2011 10:49:55 GMT -5
Doncha know, the great unwashed masses are too ignorant to vote, and the electoral college is there to correct that, if need be.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 3:26:00 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2011 10:57:48 GMT -5
I believe that the electoral college was outdated when computers were invented. I think we should elect by popular vote.
The problem with setting the number of senators by the population of the state is that a few key states will ALWAYS get their way (if they band together). A state like Wyoming will really have no say in their government.
As for the Constitution, I think it's a great document. I think our problem with the Constitution is that people look at it & can (& do)read anything that they want into it. Even here on these boards I heard people use the Constitution as justification for welfare programs. I do not believe that any sentence of the Constitution was put in with the intent of 200 years later it being used to justify the government buying toilet paper for someone that can't afford their own (or food or whatever).
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jun 26, 2011 11:00:39 GMT -5
So, are you suggesting that the President be elected strictly on a popular vote? I wonder if that would make them more or less likely to campaign in those larger states. California has tons of electoral votes because of their populace so it might still make sense to spend a large amount of time there compared to crisscrossing one of the large states on the interior with a sparse population, for example. Not saying this would happen, just speculating. I think that in the larger States, if it was a popular vote, more time and effort would be spent in those states, as they should, because those votes gained would be important in the election, where as now, say a State like Texas, even if 60 % of the vote went to the Pubs, the 40 % that would go to the Dems would be important, as would the pub votes in California..now those votes are irrevelent.., very rarely will there be a change in State voting habits..possible some short trips to areas..such as the pubs going to Boston, Hartford, for the New England vote..where as now mostly irrelevant in the big picture..in a popular vote, those votes they get will be important , and possible some regional concerns addressed by the candidates.. I wouldn't expect smaller populated States to individually be visited often but regionally? Yes i could see attention paid to them where as now only lip service , if that , is addressed to those areas of the country.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jun 26, 2011 11:03:45 GMT -5
Obviously deziloo doesn't understand the purpose of the Constitution or a federal republic. Such posts indicate the continued need for the Electoral college and equality in the Senate. The reason for the thread snerds is to discuss a possibility of..to close ones mind to any possible change, not discuss it, reasonably, not in a dissing way, I guess is beyond some ..so to your post ,
|
|
handyman2
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 23:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,087
|
Post by handyman2 on Jun 26, 2011 11:11:07 GMT -5
I am not sure doing away with the elctorial college will change anything. The pols are still going to campaign where the votes are. If i am not mistaken the house do's change according to the population thus a balance in government does occur. The senate versus the house seems to me to be a checks and balance way of doing things. The one thing is that I would change is how the house Jerrymanders the voting districts to favor one party over another. To me it should be set by county boundries in every state.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 3:26:00 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2011 11:45:37 GMT -5
I am not sure doing away with the electoral college will change anything.
The one big thing that it would change (to me) is that we would never have a president that was elected by a minority of the people voting. That could happen now.
Another interesting thing about the electoral college is that the states have different rules as to how they vote (I believe). In some states the popular vote gets all of the electoral college votes, others get a portion of the votes & some the electoral college votes go to whoever the member wants to vote for.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jun 26, 2011 11:50:49 GMT -5
OK. I apologize. But, you know you have more karma than me!!! Apology to me? Ok, accepted..karmas ...they are so hard to get for some, then again, for others, piece of cake..heres one to help you catch up, just for the hell of it..
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 27, 2011 10:51:38 GMT -5
It's not infallible- that's why there's an Amendment process. That process is the ONLY legitimate and legal means of modifying the document. Next question?
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Jun 27, 2011 12:59:52 GMT -5
Both these areas I found interesting to possible change. Do away with the Electorial College, and in the Senate, give more representation for the people , two Senators representing 36 million, and two senators representing 400,000, to me, just does not compute...any one else have any ideas and thoughts?. It would if you realized what the Senate was. The framers of the Constitution saw each state as a sovereign entity and thus gave each state equal representation. The Senate represents the states and was never meant to represent the people equally. Since the senate represents the state, they used to be chosen by the state legislature, not elected by the people. As far as the electoral college goes, I would like for the states to split the votes instead of winner takes all.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jun 27, 2011 13:15:46 GMT -5
Both these areas I found interesting to possible change. Do away with the Electorial College, and in the Senate, give more representation for the people , two Senators representing 36 million, and two senators representing 400,000, to me, just does not compute...any one else have any ideas and thoughts?. It would if you realized what the Senate was. The framers of the Constitution saw each state as a sovereign entity and thus gave each state equal representation. The Senate represents the states and was never meant to represent the people equally. Since the senate represents the state, they used to be chosen by the state legislature, not elected by the people. As far as the electoral college goes, I would like for the states to split the votes instead of winner takes all. Oh I know perfectly well why the two seats per State for the Senate came about, to protect the smaller states from what they , smaller States, thought would be unfair influence of the four largest states, Massachusets, New York, Penn and Virginia..however times do change and to have two representatives for 36 million people vs two for 400,000...to you it computes, to me , mmmm, nope. Electorial College..should be abolished, not needed, populer vote...however I beelive the Pubs would not like to see that..so I don't expect either of these two things addressed in my life time. Possible the electorial college if in a few elections in a row we have a POTUS elected by minority populace, then possible a movement to make a change..but would take years to get through all the States.
|
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on Jun 27, 2011 13:30:31 GMT -5
So would you turn the Senate into a second House or would you do away with the Senate?
Of course the Consitution is fallible. That is why we have ammendments.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jun 27, 2011 13:59:20 GMT -5
So would you turn the Senate into a second House or would you do away with the Senate? Of course the Consitution is fallible. That is why we have ammendments. Not sure..some change would be good...a state with 36 million should be better represented IMHO..there is no comparison to a State of 400,000...I know they have the House, but I feel the Senate should be looked at, not sure as to how to add seats though..something to consider though.. Big problem though is if you did add senators, where would you put them, possible up in the gallery? No money to rebuild the capital.. ;D
|
|
|
Post by maui1 on Jun 27, 2011 14:07:38 GMT -5
here is an idea that is constitutional and would save us a bunch of money
divide the senate and house by 2..
50 senators, and 300 something house members.......
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Jun 27, 2011 14:13:33 GMT -5
I don't understand why you're opposed to the senate. What do you propose? Both the house and the senate are population based? Should California, New York, and Florida, and a couple of other states dominate federal policy? That doesn't seem to be a good idea to me. The whole beauty of our form of government is checks and balences. The senate and the house are one such balence, that a few very heavily populated states can't dominate lawmaking while screwing the smaller states.
That balance was relevant when the country was founded and it's still relevant today.
|
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on Jun 27, 2011 14:21:42 GMT -5
That looks a lot to me like the only change you're considering is turning the Senate into a second House. What would the purpose of that second House be? There already is a House. Why not just disband the Senate and save the $$$?
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Jun 27, 2011 14:27:22 GMT -5
Oh I know perfectly well why the two seats per State for the Senate came about, to protect the smaller states from what they , smaller States, thought would be unfair influence of the four largest states, Massachusets, New York, Penn and Virginia..however times do change and to have two representatives for 36 million people vs two for 400,000...to you it computes, to me , mmmm, nope. The senate has nothing to do with the people. The 100 senators represent the 50 states equally, not the 300 million people. That's what the House of Representatives is for. Senate = equal representation for the States. House = equal representation for "We the People". Then we might as well let the major population centers pick the president. You think the small states don't matter now, they'd ave even less of a voice in a popular vote. Good lord....the "it's all the evil pubs fault" is a warsaw style argument. I know you can do better than that Dezi. All it takes is a constitutional amendment to overturn Article 2, section 1 of the US Constitution. I still don't see overturning a system that has worked fine for 224 years because of "two possible anomalies". aka, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
|
|
verrip1
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:41:19 GMT -5
Posts: 2,992
|
Post by verrip1 on Jun 27, 2011 14:27:56 GMT -5
What's wrong with the checks and balances on government.? I can't think of many times in US history where we need more focus on being a republic and less focus on being a democracy. Though the current crop of congresspeople are mostly farcical, the last election showed that we are in a transition to different sorts of people than the recent past has given us.
I'm one of those folks who still thinks we ought to return selection of senators to the state governments and not elect them directly.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jun 27, 2011 15:48:51 GMT -5
I also agree with abolishing the 17th amendment and returning the selection of Senators to the State Governments. I also don't think we need to get rid of the electoral college, I just don't see it as that big of a deal and it seems to have worked ok so far.
As far as the infallibility of the Constitution, the problem we have now is we are a not really following it, the Federal Government has usurped fast amounts of power that where not given to it by the States in the Constitution. Virtually anything can be regulated now as Interstate Commerce, even non-commercial activities. We are practically a republic in name only.
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Jun 27, 2011 16:04:01 GMT -5
I'd like to see it written into our laws, (the Constitution is a good place for it), that before anyone can derive anything of value from the government, (from the people), they must provide a service to the government, (to the people), that would ordinarily be a public requirement, , , plus the pay they get would be at a savings. i.e: subsistence level only, and preferably in goods rather than in money.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jun 27, 2011 19:15:21 GMT -5
I'd like to see it written into our laws, (the Constitution is a good place for it), that before anyone can derive anything of value from the government, (from the people), they must provide a service to the government, (to the people), that would ordinarily be a public requirement, , , plus the pay they get would be at a savings. i.e: subsistence level only, and preferably in goods rather than in money. I assume you are talking about receiving direct aid, and not just the benefit of living in America; But this is the problem, you are trying to correct a perceived problem in the Constitution, when in fact none exists, for the Federal Government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to give out direct aid of any kind. The 'problem' is that the constitution is mostly ignored, except for the very few rights it protects and the whole part about limited central government and enumerated powers is just thrown out.
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Jun 27, 2011 19:41:02 GMT -5
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Jun 27, 2011 21:31:26 GMT -5
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Jun 27, 2011 21:50:28 GMT -5
I am not sure doing away with the electoral college will change anything.The one big thing that it would change (to me) is that we would never have a president that was elected by a minority of the people voting. That could happen now. It did happen: Bill Clinton. Dude won by less than one percent of the popular vote but because he did so well in the electoral college, he and his supporters strutted around like peacocks claiming to have a mandate from the people. How one can have a mandate from the people without even a majority is staggering. Try explaining that and people refuse to listen- just another reason why I think we need to go back to the old days of restricting to the vote to older (21 years +) landowners.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jun 27, 2011 21:55:42 GMT -5
There are only a few changes I can think of right now that i would like, and most likely none of these changes would really be required if the Federal Government was constrained to it's original intention which was dealing mostly with external things and not meddling in the affairs of its states/citizens.
A balanced budget Term limits for members of Congress Return selection of Senators to the States. Citizenship clarified (at least one parent must be a legal citizen)
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. - Father of the Constitution
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,129
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 27, 2011 22:15:57 GMT -5
I am not sure doing away with the electoral college will change anything.The one big thing that it would change (to me) is that we would never have a president that was elected by a minority of the people voting. That could happen now. It did happen: Bill Clinton. Dude won by less than one percent of the popular vote but because he did so well in the electoral college, he and his supporters strutted around like peacocks claiming to have a mandate from the people. How one can have a mandate from the people without even a majority is staggering. Try explaining that and people refuse to listen- just another reason why I think we need to go back to the old days of restricting to the vote to older (21 years +) landowners. ditto for 2000 and 2004. we have had a whole slew of very close elections in the last two decades.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jun 27, 2011 22:36:09 GMT -5
I just was re reading some of the comments here..I see some are directed specifically at me as to what I feel would be the best way to change..as if I am guilty of messing with the constitution..
I think you missed the point of the op, it was just something I heard discussed on a news show, a think piece, items brought up and the two mentioned in the round table the specific ones discussed..
I thought interesting to be discussed, had merit, so I posted it, still think they have merit for discussion but not on my plate of things that HAVE to be done..just interesting points that I can see worthy of discussion and thought about.
To me personally, I believe the electorial college, to get more people interested in going to the ballot box..more interested in the electorial happenings of the country, yes that makes sense to me.
Personally, I lived in Texas for 11 years, beleive I voted in all the elections held there, what I do, a old habit, and I knew , being even then, a middle to the left type, my vopte would never be on the side of a winner, as I would joke, even my vote for dog catcher if one was held would mean my canditate would probably lose, and yes , I feel many do not vote in many states just because of knowing their vote would have little meaning.
I can understand a hard right Pub in most states in New England, unless local vote along the Gold Coast of Connecticut, would feel why bother, never in a million years , unless a very populer candidate, say a Reagon at the time and against who he ran, was going to matter, so why bother.
So yes of the two put up here, that is one I would like to see changed. I think it would be good for the country if one feels the higher turnout and participation of the populace of the country is important for our democracy. I know many do not feel that way, however I do. To me , it is important for the health of the Country.
|
|