US Constitution, Infallible??

[Driftr]

Jun 27, 2011 22:36:09 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

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..

Probably because in the OP you wrote that you thought there were parts that could be changed. Speaking only for myself, when I hear someone say they think something could be changed I expect them to have an alternative. When I hear someone say something 'does not compute' I expect them to provide something that does compute. When I hear people moan and complain about things without offering alternatives, I tend to think they're only around to cause problems, not solve them. But that's just me.

[deziloooooo]

Jun 28, 2011 7:43:03 GMT -5 Driftr said:

Jun 27, 2011 22:36:09 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

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..

Probably because in the OP you wrote that you thought there were parts that could be changed. Speaking only for myself, when I hear someone say they think something could be changed I expect them to have an alternative. When I hear someone say something 'does not compute' I expect them to provide something that does compute. When I hear people moan and complain about things without offering alternatives, I tend to think they're only around to cause problems, not solve them. But that's just me.

Well that's you then there is me...in this one..I think interesting idea of a few things to discuss for change..what exactly I just don't know..but as I said..electorial college, I did give you my reasons for doing away with it. It doesn't mean that you have to agree with me, but just to keep it because it's there, is not good enough for me.

With out it being there, I told you my feelings. More voters in States that are usually going historically one way, would feel , in my opinion, more inclined to vote if they knew their one vote was going to be counted, not just a waste of time..you don't feel that way, then convince me why that wouldn't be the case.

[cme1201]

Jun 27, 2011 21:50:28 GMT -5 ameiko said:

Jun 26, 2011 11:45:37 GMT -5 @oldtex said:

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.

The only modern President who did not win the popular vote since the 1900's is George W Bush in 2000.

Prior to that it was
1888: Benjamin Harrison
1876: Rutherford B Hayes
1824: John Quincy Adams

www.factcheck.org/2008/03/presidents-winning-without-popular-vote/

When you look at popular vote charts, all you see is who won 1992 Clinton 43.01% Popular vote runner up GHWB no percentage nor do they tell you how much a third party drew away from the winner and runner up. In 92 Clinton Received 43% of Pop Vote, Bush received 37% and Perot received 19%.

Facts are facts, only one president in the last 2 centuries has become president without the majority of the popular vote, 2000 Bush.

Going Farther into Clinton's line, you can see the reelection went 49% Clinton, 41% Dole and 9% Perot.

In each of Clinton's years he pulled higher than a 5% point difference in his popular vote totals, 5% is one hell of a mandate.

[Driftr]

Jun 28, 2011 10:39:01 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

Jun 28, 2011 7:43:03 GMT -5 Driftr said:

Probably because in the OP you wrote that you thought there were parts that could be changed. Speaking only for myself, when I hear someone say they think something could be changed I expect them to have an alternative. When I hear someone say something 'does not compute' I expect them to provide something that does compute. When I hear people moan and complain about things without offering alternatives, I tend to think they're only around to cause problems, not solve them. But that's just me.

Well that's you then there is me...in this one..I think interesting idea of a few things to discuss for change..what exactly I just don't know..but as I said..electorial college, I did give you my reasons for doing away with it. It doesn't mean that you have to agree with me, but just to keep it because it's there, is not good enough for me.

With out it being there, I told you my feelings. More voters in States that are usually going historically one way, would feel , in my opinion, more inclined to vote if they knew their one vote was going to be counted, not just a waste of time..you don't feel that way, then convince me why that wouldn't be the case.

Is there anything in your response that is meant to explain your solution to your OP where you wrote:

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.

It appears to me as if you have given up your musings on changing the Senate and only wish to focus on the elimination of the electoral college. Is that an accurate assessment? If not, please do explain what your plans for the Senate would be.

[floridayankee]

Jun 27, 2011 22:36:09 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

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.

That explains where you getting your ideas from. The only problem is that we are a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. Most people think a Democracy and Republic are essentially the same, but they are actually quite different. The following comes from an article that contrasts the differences between a Republic and a Democracy.

A Democracy

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

A Republic

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.

To read more, go to lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html

What this is basically saying that a Democracy results in mobocracy where majority rule whether it's governed by impulse, prejudice, or passion, there is absolutely no restraint or regard to consequences. It is destructive to individual freedoms and liberty because the majority can essentially crap all over the rights of the minority.

[deziloooooo]

Isn't that why we have a "bill of rights" and a "constitution', to protect the minority of abuses by the majority..

[djAdvocate]

Jun 28, 2011 10:46:59 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

Jun 27, 2011 21:50:28 GMT -5 ameiko said:

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.

The only modern President who did not win the popular vote since the 1900's is George W Bush in 2000.

and that disaster alone should be pause for reflection.

[ungenteel]

infallible ... hardly

That's why the founders built in the right to amend it ... also because "the founders" knew they blew it with the Articles of Confederation and they needed to make sure there was an easy way out if they had, again, screwed up