4 ms·

It was a product of it's time. And there were real reasons at the time for a number of those elements. - The electoral college was mean to provide a bit of sep

It was a product of it's time. And there were real reasons at the time for a number of those elements. - The electoral college was mean to provide a bit of separation between the population and election to the Presidential office. Remember, in the 1790s, direct election of what was envisioned as a powerful post worried many. While it is largely a formality now, the electoral college provided a degree of separation to allow for cooler heads to prevent the spontaneous election of someone unfit. (Personal thought: If Trump somehow gets the nomination, I motion that this be the perfect test of that body's powers.) - I'm not sure what one can take issue with regarding the amendment process. It's ensured that the document has remained flexible over the years, and was a mechanism created from the outset to fix flaws and limitations known even then. The inclusion of this process could be seen as a nod to the charges Mason and others brought that the new Constitution did not do enough to protect individual liberties. There was not enough broad support at the time to determine what they should be, and the US needed a better system quickly to replace the Articles of Confederation. The amendment process allowed them to move forward and tackle the issue at a later time. - In Revolutionary times, communications were either in person, or by letter. British soldiers stationed in the cities roamed in public, making meetings to discuss the state of affairs dangerous and difficult. Speaking of anything relating to disobedience to the King and Government in England was an arrestable offensive, a little cause or warrent was needed. So the private home was the preferred location. Well now imagine that a new directive has been passed, and now a police officer has been assigned to live with you. It's all in the context of providing housing, but he is watching, listening, and will report a disloyal word up to his superiors. It's 18th century persistent surveillance, and the colonists were outraged. That amendment today seems silly, (it's rarely been directly contested in court) but it's immensely important to establishing a Right to Privacy because of it's intent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Judicial_interpretation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Amendment_to_the_United_...

vacri 11y ago
... I'm not sure how "it was a product of it's time" is an appropriate rebuttal to "bits of it are stale". I'm genuinely puzzled that you think I need a history lesson, given I characterised parts of it as stale, which I would have thought inherently included the concept "it was a product of it's time" - that things that were once fresh and relevant are no longer so.
- ckozlowski 11y ago
  My apologies. I thought the "stale" comment was directed at the third amendment in particular. Most of what I was offering my rebuttal on was this: >all suggest that there are things wrong with the American constitution. Depending on your interpretation of "Wrong", I'd either agree or disagree. But the general point I was trying to make was that I don't find too many flaws with the examples you provided, and with regards to the third amendment, I was trying to provide an example in which even older parts of the document still have a lot of relevance, despite seeming stale at face value. I didn't mean to insult your intelligence by providing the history lesson though; when I write a reply I do so imagining everyone in the discussion is reading, so while it is probably not new information to you, it might be to someone else. That's the real value in our talk here. Sorry about that, Cheers. =)
  - vacri 11y ago
    The thing is, you can appreciate a thing and admire it, and still see room for improvement. To claim there is nothing wrong with the US constitution (as the OP did) is to take a religiose view of it. One other flaw I just put to wtbob below is that the way the document structures elections, the result is a two-party system that simply cannot adequately represent hundreds of millions of people of diverse backgrounds. Given that the document was raised explicitly in response to inadequate representation, that's a problem. Is it the worst problem ever in a constitution? No, but it is still an issue. Edit: For comparison, here in Australia we have a couple of major parties, a couple of big minor parties, and a scattering of small parties all in government at the moment. Or in Germany, it's entirely normal for major parties to have to band together to form a majority in order to govern - from memory, Merkel's party gets about 25% of the vote, and has to create a coalition with other parties to get the majority required. There is space in these systems for new parties to rise, and the concept of "you're either for us or against us" is nowhere near as prevalent as in the US. These systems have their issues too, but they are more representative of their people due to their flexibility.
    - ckozlowski 11y ago
      I agree with that. If there's one persistently leveled "flaw" in the structure of things, it was the failure to take into account the impact of political parties. There was far more concern about varying regional interests than political orientation. Re: Germany, (I live abroad in Germany right now, it's fascinating to watch) The fascinating thing was in this latest election, her party very nearly won an outright majority, meaning it would have required no partners at all. I think the CSU/CDU felt just short of the 51% required. There's never been such a sweeping victory of that scale since the party's inception in the 50's.
mvymvy 11y ago
A majority of the states appointed their presidential electors in the nation's first presidential election in 1789 by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet. Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century. The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens. The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome. The electors are and will be dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors). In a winner-take-all state, if Trump is nominated and wins in that state, his party's electors in that state will vote for him.
- ckozlowski 11y ago
  I looked back over that bit I wrote and felt it could have been a lot better. You're right, there's rarely been deviation between the popular vote and the electoral. It was envisioned that the electoral college would rarely produce a clear result, and when this system was implemented, many of those state laws you mentioned did not exist. (If I recall correctly, many of them came about after the Gore vs. Bush contest. I do recall direct representation being a cited concern, though I agree that yes, it's original function doesn't seem to have been needed. But I couldn't tell you if that's because it's never been tested, or if it's because of the structure thereof that's prevented a test.

vacri 11y ago

... I'm not sure how "it was a product of it's time" is an appropriate rebuttal to "bits of it are stale". I'm genuinely puzzled that you think I need a history lesson, given I characterised parts of it as stale, which I would have thought inherently included the concept "it was a product of it's time" - that things that were once fresh and relevant are no longer so.

ckozlowski 11y ago
My apologies. I thought the "stale" comment was directed at the third amendment in particular. Most of what I was offering my rebuttal on was this: >all suggest that there are things wrong with the American constitution. Depending on your interpretation of "Wrong", I'd either agree or disagree. But the general point I was trying to make was that I don't find too many flaws with the examples you provided, and with regards to the third amendment, I was trying to provide an example in which even older parts of the document still have a lot of relevance, despite seeming stale at face value. I didn't mean to insult your intelligence by providing the history lesson though; when I write a reply I do so imagining everyone in the discussion is reading, so while it is probably not new information to you, it might be to someone else. That's the real value in our talk here. Sorry about that, Cheers. =)
- vacri 11y ago
  The thing is, you can appreciate a thing and admire it, and still see room for improvement. To claim there is nothing wrong with the US constitution (as the OP did) is to take a religiose view of it. One other flaw I just put to wtbob below is that the way the document structures elections, the result is a two-party system that simply cannot adequately represent hundreds of millions of people of diverse backgrounds. Given that the document was raised explicitly in response to inadequate representation, that's a problem. Is it the worst problem ever in a constitution? No, but it is still an issue. Edit: For comparison, here in Australia we have a couple of major parties, a couple of big minor parties, and a scattering of small parties all in government at the moment. Or in Germany, it's entirely normal for major parties to have to band together to form a majority in order to govern - from memory, Merkel's party gets about 25% of the vote, and has to create a coalition with other parties to get the majority required. There is space in these systems for new parties to rise, and the concept of "you're either for us or against us" is nowhere near as prevalent as in the US. These systems have their issues too, but they are more representative of their people due to their flexibility.
  - ckozlowski 11y ago
    I agree with that. If there's one persistently leveled "flaw" in the structure of things, it was the failure to take into account the impact of political parties. There was far more concern about varying regional interests than political orientation. Re: Germany, (I live abroad in Germany right now, it's fascinating to watch) The fascinating thing was in this latest election, her party very nearly won an outright majority, meaning it would have required no partners at all. I think the CSU/CDU felt just short of the 51% required. There's never been such a sweeping victory of that scale since the party's inception in the 50's.

mvymvy 11y ago

A majority of the states appointed their presidential electors in the nation's first presidential election in 1789 by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet. Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century. The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens. The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome. The electors are and will be dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors). In a winner-take-all state, if Trump is nominated and wins in that state, his party's electors in that state will vote for him.

ckozlowski 11y ago
I looked back over that bit I wrote and felt it could have been a lot better. You're right, there's rarely been deviation between the popular vote and the electoral. It was envisioned that the electoral college would rarely produce a clear result, and when this system was implemented, many of those state laws you mentioned did not exist. (If I recall correctly, many of them came about after the Gore vs. Bush contest. I do recall direct representation being a cited concern, though I agree that yes, it's original function doesn't seem to have been needed. But I couldn't tell you if that's because it's never been tested, or if it's because of the structure thereof that's prevented a test.