6 ms·

And that’s why the founders set up the electoral college. We are a federal republic of states. The federal government was supposed to be small, because the fou

And that’s why the founders set up the electoral college. We are a federal republic of states. The federal government was supposed to be small, because the founders understood the downside of a large federal government.

ReactiveJelly 4y ago
But I don't like being a federation. Having 50 states each infighting, competing to race to the bottom and attract business from each other, like 50 tiny nations, it's not what I want.
- cloutchaser 4y ago
  Well, that’s the direction it’s been going for 100 years, so you should be happy
  - ABCLAW 4y ago
    Well your government has reached the point that it cannot govern at the federal level or reasonably receive strong mandates to deal with issues. Faith in democratic institutions is tanking. This is what it looks like before the system breaks entirely. The buffers can't buffer anymore.
    - hgsgm 4y ago
- inglor_cz 4y ago
  "competing to race to the bottom" Looking at the US in the last 200 years, it has grown enormously rich, while many ossified systems in the world around it have collapsed. It seems that the competition you dislike does not turn individual Americans into paupers. An average American's living standard is so high that it is actually ecologically unsustainable.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    The US was excellent at not being in Europe during WWII, and really great at accumulating a massive negative balance of payments for 40 years after the juice from that ran out.
    - sangnoir 4y ago
      "Not having your factories being bombed" has huge economic upsides.
      - inglor_cz 4y ago
        "Having your factories bombed" is, ironically, a huge motivator too. At the end of the war, Germans had better and more modern industrial equipment than the British, mostly hidden in improvised underground factories. What really suffered was the civilian housing stock, but the average German industrial machine was less than 5 years old - to a surprise of the Allied occupation authorities. Both Germany and Japan rebuilt their industrial bases to become export juggernauts. And fairly quickly so. Experience with forced improvisation helped.
        selimthegrim 4y ago
        I’m assuming the Soviets packed it all up
        inglor_cz 4y ago
        From the former DDR and territories that went to Poland, yes, they took quite a lot, but the German industrial heartland around the rivers Rhein and Ruhr is located in the West and it was divided between American and British sectors. No Soviets there.
  - sangnoir 4y ago
    This reeks of recency bias: 100 years ago, a british gentleman likely said the same about the superiority of the British Empire as proved by its lasting power - now it's a pale shadow of itself, with Brexit sealing its fate.
- wrycoder 4y ago
  Then set up a Constitutional Convention. People in NH view life differently than those in CA, and don’t appreciate the idea of one way for everyone, as determined by the folk in the large blue cities.
  - hgsgm 4y ago
smt88 4y ago
Having a small federal government has no relationship with eliminating the Electoral College. The "land votes, not people" scheme of the US is a holdover from appeasing wealthy landowners and slavers. We need at least one branch of the federal government that is directly democratic. The way things are going, an increasingly small minority of extremists will make decisions at the federal level, as we are starting to see now.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  The Electoral College is a triviality that we get hung up on because every loser blames it for their loss. The real undemocratic institution in the US is its most powerful, the US Senate. It should be directly democratic.
  - smt88 4y ago
    > because every loser blames it for their loss No Republican loser has blamed it for their loss because it hasn't hurt any of them in the modern era. When you get 6 million more votes than your opponent and still lose, that's a subversion of democracy. I don't see how that's any different than the Senate. With direct democracy, we would've had a more popular president with more popular policies for an additional 8 of the last 22 years.
  - wrycoder 4y ago
    It is directly democratic. Two senators are elected by the voters of each state. (The Founders preferred that the two senators be elected by the legislatures of each state, but a constitutional amendment changed that.) We are not one big representative democracy. We are a federation of states. It was not intended that the federal government run everything - it was concerned primarily with defense and relations with other countries. Originally.
    - int_19h 4y ago
      Let me quote something the Founders wrote when they argued for replacing the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution: "The right of equal suffrage among the States is another exceptionable part of the Confederation. Every idea of proportion and every rule of fair representation conspire to condemn a principle, which gives to Rhode Island an equal weight in the scale of power with Massachusetts, or Connecticut, or New York; and to Deleware an equal voice in the national deliberations with Pennsylvania, or Virginia, or North Carolina. Its operation contradicts the fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail. Sophistry may reply, that sovereigns are equal, and that a majority of the votes of the States will be a majority of confederated America. But this kind of logical legerdemain will never counteract the plain suggestions of justice and common-sense. It may happen that this majority of States is a small minority of the people of America; and two thirds of the people of America could not long be persuaded, upon the credit of artificial distinctions and syllogistic subtleties, to submit their interests to the management and disposal of one third. The larger States would after a while revolt from the idea of receiving the law from the smaller. To acquiesce in such a privation of their due importance in the political scale, would be not merely to be insensible to the love of power, but even to sacrifice the desire of equality. It is neither rational to expect the first, nor just to require the last. The smaller States, considering how peculiarly their safety and welfare depend on union, ought readily to renounce a pretension which, if not relinquished, would prove fatal to its duration. It may be objected to this, that not seven but nine States, or two thirds of the whole number, must consent to the most important resolutions; and it may be thence inferred that nine States would always comprehend a majority of the Union. But this does not obviate the impropriety of an equal vote between States of the most unequal dimensions and populousness; nor is the inference accurate in point of fact; for we can enumerate nine States which contain less than a majority of the people; and it is constitutionally possible that these nine may give the vote. Besides, there are matters of considerable moment determinable by a bare majority; and there are others, concerning which doubts have been entertained, which, if interpreted in favor of the sufficiency of a vote of seven States, would extend its operation to interests of the first magnitude. In addition to this, it is to be observed that there is a probability of an increase in the number of States, and no provision for a proportional augmentation of the ratio of votes. But this is not all: what at first sight may seem a remedy, is, in reality, a poison. To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser. Congress, from the nonattendance of a few States, have been frequently in the situation of a Polish diet, where a single VOTE has been sufficient to put a stop to all their movements. A sixtieth part of the Union, which is about the proportion of Delaware and Rhode Island, has several times been able to oppose an entire bar to its operations. This is one of those refinements which, in practice, has an effect the reverse of what is expected from it in theory. The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching towards it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. In those emergencies of a nation, in which the goodness or badness, the weakness or strength of its government, is of the greatest importance, there is commonly a necessity for action. The public business must, in some way or other, go forward. If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated. It is often, by the impracticability of obtaining the concurrence of the necessary number of votes, kept in a state of inaction. Its situation must always savor of weakness, sometimes border upon anarchy." (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed22.asp https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed22.asp) Sounds familiar? Thing is, the Articles of Confederation was the only thing they could agree upon at the time, so it was better than nothing. And the Constitution, similarly, was the only thing they could agree upon at that time. Both were compromises guided by the unique circumstances of the time. When those circumstances change significantly, the compromise may no longer make sense for all the parties involved. I don't think that either EC or the Senate make sense for many states at this point; they merely tolerate them, but the more the minority uses those mechanisms to push its politics on the majority, the less that tolerance is going to be. Keep doing this, and you'll find out that Constitution that not enough people believe in is, indeed, just a piece of paper.
kiba 4y ago
The founders think they understood the downside of a large federal government.
arrosenberg 4y ago
The founders were not that homogenous, and plenty of them wanted to recreate the British government for the new United States.
erentz 4y ago
> The federal government was supposed to be small, because the founders understood the downside of a large federal government. Those that want to return to this need to start advocating to abolish freedom of movement and permit states to implement residency requirements to access services. That way State A can go ahead an implement locally the "large federal government" services like Medicare or Social Security, while State Z can choose not to. At the moment our constitutional rights mean State Z residents can freeload by moving to State A. This kind of problem simply wasn't conceivable when the country was founded.
- MonkeyMalarky 4y ago
  This is sort of how it works in Canada; healthcare, disability, welfare and (some) pensions are all managed individually by each province. When you move, you have to jump through hoops to get access to those services in the new province. Still gets funded federally though and how money is transferred between provinces is huge point of contention.
  - erentz 4y ago
    Yeah, I think this is how it works for example in Australia too. You could conceive of this in the US just as easily, for example Medicaid (not Medicare) is a bit like that, run and jointly financed by the state and federal. But again that's "big government" to these states that want to reject healthcare. What I would bet too is if you go and poll people on whether they like their "big government" program or what to get rid of it, most people would rather keep it, Medicare is big government I don't see seniors wanting rid of it. Social Security is big government. The military, I don't see anyone in these "small government" states saying they want rid of that.
- wrycoder 4y ago
  That's why the homeless go to San Francisco or Maine. Better services. The states are like incubators for different policies. The rest of us watch, and see what does work, and what doesn't work. For all I know, there are residency requirements for services in some places. One of the things the Constitution protects is freedom of movement. If a state wanted to implement something like Medicare for All, I think they could just do that. If you don't like the laws in your state - change them. If you live in California and you don't like the law in Alabama, what business of yours is that?
hgsgm 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mike00632 4y ago
Actually it was more about making sure slave states were represented. Not as noble of an idea as you're pitching.

ReactiveJelly 4y ago

But I don't like being a federation. Having 50 states each infighting, competing to race to the bottom and attract business from each other, like 50 tiny nations, it's not what I want.

cloutchaser 4y ago
Well, that’s the direction it’s been going for 100 years, so you should be happy
- ABCLAW 4y ago
  Well your government has reached the point that it cannot govern at the federal level or reasonably receive strong mandates to deal with issues. Faith in democratic institutions is tanking. This is what it looks like before the system breaks entirely. The buffers can't buffer anymore.
  - hgsgm 4y ago
inglor_cz 4y ago
"competing to race to the bottom" Looking at the US in the last 200 years, it has grown enormously rich, while many ossified systems in the world around it have collapsed. It seems that the competition you dislike does not turn individual Americans into paupers. An average American's living standard is so high that it is actually ecologically unsustainable.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  The US was excellent at not being in Europe during WWII, and really great at accumulating a massive negative balance of payments for 40 years after the juice from that ran out.
  - sangnoir 4y ago
    "Not having your factories being bombed" has huge economic upsides.
    - inglor_cz 4y ago
      "Having your factories bombed" is, ironically, a huge motivator too. At the end of the war, Germans had better and more modern industrial equipment than the British, mostly hidden in improvised underground factories. What really suffered was the civilian housing stock, but the average German industrial machine was less than 5 years old - to a surprise of the Allied occupation authorities. Both Germany and Japan rebuilt their industrial bases to become export juggernauts. And fairly quickly so. Experience with forced improvisation helped.
      - selimthegrim 4y ago
        I’m assuming the Soviets packed it all up
        inglor_cz 4y ago
        From the former DDR and territories that went to Poland, yes, they took quite a lot, but the German industrial heartland around the rivers Rhein and Ruhr is located in the West and it was divided between American and British sectors. No Soviets there.
- sangnoir 4y ago
  This reeks of recency bias: 100 years ago, a british gentleman likely said the same about the superiority of the British Empire as proved by its lasting power - now it's a pale shadow of itself, with Brexit sealing its fate.
wrycoder 4y ago
Then set up a Constitutional Convention. People in NH view life differently than those in CA, and don’t appreciate the idea of one way for everyone, as determined by the folk in the large blue cities.
- hgsgm 4y ago

smt88 4y ago

Having a small federal government has no relationship with eliminating the Electoral College. The "land votes, not people" scheme of the US is a holdover from appeasing wealthy landowners and slavers. We need at least one branch of the federal government that is directly democratic. The way things are going, an increasingly small minority of extremists will make decisions at the federal level, as we are starting to see now.

pessimizer 4y ago
The Electoral College is a triviality that we get hung up on because every loser blames it for their loss. The real undemocratic institution in the US is its most powerful, the US Senate. It should be directly democratic.
- smt88 4y ago
  > because every loser blames it for their loss No Republican loser has blamed it for their loss because it hasn't hurt any of them in the modern era. When you get 6 million more votes than your opponent and still lose, that's a subversion of democracy. I don't see how that's any different than the Senate. With direct democracy, we would've had a more popular president with more popular policies for an additional 8 of the last 22 years.
- wrycoder 4y ago
  It is directly democratic. Two senators are elected by the voters of each state. (The Founders preferred that the two senators be elected by the legislatures of each state, but a constitutional amendment changed that.) We are not one big representative democracy. We are a federation of states. It was not intended that the federal government run everything - it was concerned primarily with defense and relations with other countries. Originally.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    Let me quote something the Founders wrote when they argued for replacing the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution: "The right of equal suffrage among the States is another exceptionable part of the Confederation. Every idea of proportion and every rule of fair representation conspire to condemn a principle, which gives to Rhode Island an equal weight in the scale of power with Massachusetts, or Connecticut, or New York; and to Deleware an equal voice in the national deliberations with Pennsylvania, or Virginia, or North Carolina. Its operation contradicts the fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail. Sophistry may reply, that sovereigns are equal, and that a majority of the votes of the States will be a majority of confederated America. But this kind of logical legerdemain will never counteract the plain suggestions of justice and common-sense. It may happen that this majority of States is a small minority of the people of America; and two thirds of the people of America could not long be persuaded, upon the credit of artificial distinctions and syllogistic subtleties, to submit their interests to the management and disposal of one third. The larger States would after a while revolt from the idea of receiving the law from the smaller. To acquiesce in such a privation of their due importance in the political scale, would be not merely to be insensible to the love of power, but even to sacrifice the desire of equality. It is neither rational to expect the first, nor just to require the last. The smaller States, considering how peculiarly their safety and welfare depend on union, ought readily to renounce a pretension which, if not relinquished, would prove fatal to its duration. It may be objected to this, that not seven but nine States, or two thirds of the whole number, must consent to the most important resolutions; and it may be thence inferred that nine States would always comprehend a majority of the Union. But this does not obviate the impropriety of an equal vote between States of the most unequal dimensions and populousness; nor is the inference accurate in point of fact; for we can enumerate nine States which contain less than a majority of the people; and it is constitutionally possible that these nine may give the vote. Besides, there are matters of considerable moment determinable by a bare majority; and there are others, concerning which doubts have been entertained, which, if interpreted in favor of the sufficiency of a vote of seven States, would extend its operation to interests of the first magnitude. In addition to this, it is to be observed that there is a probability of an increase in the number of States, and no provision for a proportional augmentation of the ratio of votes. But this is not all: what at first sight may seem a remedy, is, in reality, a poison. To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser. Congress, from the nonattendance of a few States, have been frequently in the situation of a Polish diet, where a single VOTE has been sufficient to put a stop to all their movements. A sixtieth part of the Union, which is about the proportion of Delaware and Rhode Island, has several times been able to oppose an entire bar to its operations. This is one of those refinements which, in practice, has an effect the reverse of what is expected from it in theory. The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching towards it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. In those emergencies of a nation, in which the goodness or badness, the weakness or strength of its government, is of the greatest importance, there is commonly a necessity for action. The public business must, in some way or other, go forward. If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated. It is often, by the impracticability of obtaining the concurrence of the necessary number of votes, kept in a state of inaction. Its situation must always savor of weakness, sometimes border upon anarchy." (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed22.asp https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed22.asp) Sounds familiar? Thing is, the Articles of Confederation was the only thing they could agree upon at the time, so it was better than nothing. And the Constitution, similarly, was the only thing they could agree upon at that time. Both were compromises guided by the unique circumstances of the time. When those circumstances change significantly, the compromise may no longer make sense for all the parties involved. I don't think that either EC or the Senate make sense for many states at this point; they merely tolerate them, but the more the minority uses those mechanisms to push its politics on the majority, the less that tolerance is going to be. Keep doing this, and you'll find out that Constitution that not enough people believe in is, indeed, just a piece of paper.

kiba 4y ago

The founders think they understood the downside of a large federal government.

arrosenberg 4y ago

The founders were not that homogenous, and plenty of them wanted to recreate the British government for the new United States.

erentz 4y ago

> The federal government was supposed to be small, because the founders understood the downside of a large federal government. Those that want to return to this need to start advocating to abolish freedom of movement and permit states to implement residency requirements to access services. That way State A can go ahead an implement locally the "large federal government" services like Medicare or Social Security, while State Z can choose not to. At the moment our constitutional rights mean State Z residents can freeload by moving to State A. This kind of problem simply wasn't conceivable when the country was founded.

MonkeyMalarky 4y ago
This is sort of how it works in Canada; healthcare, disability, welfare and (some) pensions are all managed individually by each province. When you move, you have to jump through hoops to get access to those services in the new province. Still gets funded federally though and how money is transferred between provinces is huge point of contention.
- erentz 4y ago
  Yeah, I think this is how it works for example in Australia too. You could conceive of this in the US just as easily, for example Medicaid (not Medicare) is a bit like that, run and jointly financed by the state and federal. But again that's "big government" to these states that want to reject healthcare. What I would bet too is if you go and poll people on whether they like their "big government" program or what to get rid of it, most people would rather keep it, Medicare is big government I don't see seniors wanting rid of it. Social Security is big government. The military, I don't see anyone in these "small government" states saying they want rid of that.
wrycoder 4y ago
That's why the homeless go to San Francisco or Maine. Better services. The states are like incubators for different policies. The rest of us watch, and see what does work, and what doesn't work. For all I know, there are residency requirements for services in some places. One of the things the Constitution protects is freedom of movement. If a state wanted to implement something like Medicare for All, I think they could just do that. If you don't like the laws in your state - change them. If you live in California and you don't like the law in Alabama, what business of yours is that?

hgsgm 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

mike00632 4y ago

Actually it was more about making sure slave states were represented. Not as noble of an idea as you're pitching.