5 ms·

Senators were meant to represent each state's government not the people directly. The Senate, by being once removed from the people, was supposed to take a lon

Senators were meant to represent each state's government not the people directly. The Senate, by being once removed from the people, was supposed to take a longer more measured view on issues. The 17th Amendment[1] broke that and made senators elected by the people. The people have the House. The House has also been broken over time. In 1929 the House was capped at 435 members. Since then the number of people that a given representative represents has increased dramatically from 209,447 people in 1910 to 747,184 in 2018.[2] I agree that the Electoral College needs reform but I am sure that we will not agree on the solution. I think that each state, being an equal member in the union, should have an equal number of electoral votes. Equal votes per state reinforces the purpose of the republic. The republic is supposed to ensure that each state can live the way they want and have military protection. Having one state with more say in the executive is antithetical to a republic. The president is supposed to represent the union, not the people, on the international stage. Doing away with the Electoral College and going for a direct democracy is a recipe for disaster. Direct democracy does not work on a large scale. The answer to much of the contention we have today is to return to the limited government that was originally described in the Constitution. Power has become too concentrated in DC and now everybody is playing the game of thrones. [1] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-17/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-17/ [2] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/31/u-s-population-keeps-growing-but-house-of-representatives-is-same-size-as-in-taft-era/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/31/u-s-populat...

colinmhayes 4y ago
literally no one is suggesting a direct democracy. The question is whether the constituents of this country are people or states, and I suppose the answer probably depends on whether you live in a populated or unpopulated state.
- tastyfreeze 4y ago
  The Constitution is an agreement between the states, not individuals. When ratifying the Constitution the people of a state voted to join the union as the unit of a state not as individuals. That makes the states the constituents not the people.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - int_19h 4y ago
    If that was all there is to it, there would have been no House of Representatives. But people who authored the Constitution knew full well that it was not just about the states: "... if, in a word, the Union be essential to the happiness of the people of America, is it not preposterous, to urge as an objection to a government, without which the objects of the Union cannot be attained, that such a government may derogate from the importance of the governments of the individual States? Was, then, the American Revolution effected, was the American Confederacy formed, was the precious blood of thousands spilt, and the hard-earned substance of millions lavished, not that the people of America should enjoy peace, liberty, and safety, but that the government of the individual States, that particular municipal establishments, might enjoy a certain extent of power, and be arrayed with certain dignities and attributes of sovereignty? We have heard of the impious doctrine in the Old World, that the people were made for kings, not kings for the people. Is the same doctrine to be revived in the New, in another shape that the solid happiness of the people is to be sacrificed to the views of political institutions of a different form?" It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object. Were the plan of the convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, Reject the plan. Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union. In like manner, as far as the sovereignty of the States cannot be reconciled to the happiness of the people, the voice of every good citizen must be, Let the former be sacrificed to the latter." (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed45.asp https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed45.asp) And here's a bit more specifically on the nature of the government that they were trying to establish: "The proposed Constitution, therefore, is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both. In its foundation it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of the government are drawn, it is partly federal and partly national; in the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal; in the extent of them, again, it is federal, not national; and, finally, in the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal nor wholly national." (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed39.asp https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed39.asp)
hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
> Doing away with the Electoral College and going for a direct democracy is a recipe for disaster. Direct democracy does not work on a large scale. This is a talking point that doesn't make any sense. Electing the president and vice president by popular vote is not "direct democracy". It is how virtually every other representative democracy with a presidential system elects their executive leaders.
- midoridensha 4y ago
  >It is how virtually every other representative democracy with a presidential system elects their executive leaders. And which countries are those? Russia Turkey El Salvador Philippines Not exactly paragons of democracy. Face it: the Presidential system itself is a disaster. A Parliamentary system is what you want if you want a democratic country with high-quality governance.
  - stevenwoo 4y ago
    Just please without the weaknesses of the UK system, Boris Johnson, Theresa May Liz Truss, and Rishi Sunak in short order with mostly only input from hardcore party members is terrible form of democracy. The Lords system also is pretty bad as well though of less importance now versus something like US Senate.
  - Arainach 4y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_system_of_government#Presidential_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_system_of... The list is far longer than that.
    - kcplate 4y ago
      How many of those countries on that list would you put forth as good examples of a stable political system? I counted five, and that’s being fairly generous since two of the five has had some political upheaval in the last 50 years.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> Direct democracy does not work on a large scale. It maybe could with smart use of modern technologies, revocable proxies, and..., but that’s irrelevant because “adopt direct democracy for the US” is not even among the top 10 proposed alternatives to the current setup of the Electoral College.
- johnnyanmac 4y ago
  I'm curious on what the current popular alternatives are. It does seem like most conversation focuses on direct democracy since it's fixated on respecting the popular vote.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > I’m curious on what the current popular alternatives are Electing the President by national popular vote is by far the most commonly cited alternative. > It does seem like most conversation focuses on direct democracy It does not. > since it’s fixated on respecting the popular vote. Electing officials by popular vote is representative democracy, not direct democracy. Direct democracy is the citizens making policy decisions by popular vote, without elected officials as intermediaries (e.g., many U.S. states use some form of ballot initiative and/or referendum system, which are – limited forms, since they still have elected legislators do most lawmaking – direct democracy.)
  - zhoujianfu 4y ago
    see nationalpopularvote.com
int_19h 4y ago
The Articles of Confederation were 1-state-1-vote, and we've seen how that ended. The Founders explicitly rejected that approach when drafting the Constitution, and documented their reasons: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed22.asp https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed22.asp "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." "... 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." Note that the highlighted bit is exactly the state of affairs that we have today. Which is to say, EC/Senate today is basically as bad as AoC 1-state-1-vote was back then.
lupire 4y ago
Why should the votes on the US be apportioned based on boundaries largely chosen by the English aristocracy of the 17th Century?
- BuyMyBitcoins 4y ago
  >”boundaries largely chosen by the English aristocracy of the 17th Century?” There’s a vast stretch of land past the Mississippi River that the English Aristocracy had no say in the division of past 1776. You could broadly argue that the land West of the original 13 states up to the Mississippi was drawn by the English, but even after independence Americans chose the borders of states like Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, and many more.

colinmhayes 4y ago

literally no one is suggesting a direct democracy. The question is whether the constituents of this country are people or states, and I suppose the answer probably depends on whether you live in a populated or unpopulated state.

tastyfreeze 4y ago
The Constitution is an agreement between the states, not individuals. When ratifying the Constitution the people of a state voted to join the union as the unit of a state not as individuals. That makes the states the constituents not the people.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- int_19h 4y ago
  If that was all there is to it, there would have been no House of Representatives. But people who authored the Constitution knew full well that it was not just about the states: "... if, in a word, the Union be essential to the happiness of the people of America, is it not preposterous, to urge as an objection to a government, without which the objects of the Union cannot be attained, that such a government may derogate from the importance of the governments of the individual States? Was, then, the American Revolution effected, was the American Confederacy formed, was the precious blood of thousands spilt, and the hard-earned substance of millions lavished, not that the people of America should enjoy peace, liberty, and safety, but that the government of the individual States, that particular municipal establishments, might enjoy a certain extent of power, and be arrayed with certain dignities and attributes of sovereignty? We have heard of the impious doctrine in the Old World, that the people were made for kings, not kings for the people. Is the same doctrine to be revived in the New, in another shape that the solid happiness of the people is to be sacrificed to the views of political institutions of a different form?" It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object. Were the plan of the convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, Reject the plan. Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union. In like manner, as far as the sovereignty of the States cannot be reconciled to the happiness of the people, the voice of every good citizen must be, Let the former be sacrificed to the latter." (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed45.asp https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed45.asp) And here's a bit more specifically on the nature of the government that they were trying to establish: "The proposed Constitution, therefore, is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both. In its foundation it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of the government are drawn, it is partly federal and partly national; in the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal; in the extent of them, again, it is federal, not national; and, finally, in the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal nor wholly national." (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed39.asp https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed39.asp)

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago

> Doing away with the Electoral College and going for a direct democracy is a recipe for disaster. Direct democracy does not work on a large scale. This is a talking point that doesn't make any sense. Electing the president and vice president by popular vote is not "direct democracy". It is how virtually every other representative democracy with a presidential system elects their executive leaders.

midoridensha 4y ago
>It is how virtually every other representative democracy with a presidential system elects their executive leaders. And which countries are those? Russia Turkey El Salvador Philippines Not exactly paragons of democracy. Face it: the Presidential system itself is a disaster. A Parliamentary system is what you want if you want a democratic country with high-quality governance.
- stevenwoo 4y ago
  Just please without the weaknesses of the UK system, Boris Johnson, Theresa May Liz Truss, and Rishi Sunak in short order with mostly only input from hardcore party members is terrible form of democracy. The Lords system also is pretty bad as well though of less importance now versus something like US Senate.
- Arainach 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_system_of_government#Presidential_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_system_of... The list is far longer than that.
  - kcplate 4y ago
    How many of those countries on that list would you put forth as good examples of a stable political system? I counted five, and that’s being fairly generous since two of the five has had some political upheaval in the last 50 years.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> Direct democracy does not work on a large scale. It maybe could with smart use of modern technologies, revocable proxies, and..., but that’s irrelevant because “adopt direct democracy for the US” is not even among the top 10 proposed alternatives to the current setup of the Electoral College.

johnnyanmac 4y ago
I'm curious on what the current popular alternatives are. It does seem like most conversation focuses on direct democracy since it's fixated on respecting the popular vote.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > I’m curious on what the current popular alternatives are Electing the President by national popular vote is by far the most commonly cited alternative. > It does seem like most conversation focuses on direct democracy It does not. > since it’s fixated on respecting the popular vote. Electing officials by popular vote is representative democracy, not direct democracy. Direct democracy is the citizens making policy decisions by popular vote, without elected officials as intermediaries (e.g., many U.S. states use some form of ballot initiative and/or referendum system, which are – limited forms, since they still have elected legislators do most lawmaking – direct democracy.)
- zhoujianfu 4y ago
  see nationalpopularvote.com

int_19h 4y ago

The Articles of Confederation were 1-state-1-vote, and we've seen how that ended. The Founders explicitly rejected that approach when drafting the Constitution, and documented their reasons: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed22.asp https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed22.asp "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." "... 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." Note that the highlighted bit is exactly the state of affairs that we have today. Which is to say, EC/Senate today is basically as bad as AoC 1-state-1-vote was back then.

lupire 4y ago

Why should the votes on the US be apportioned based on boundaries largely chosen by the English aristocracy of the 17th Century?

BuyMyBitcoins 4y ago
>”boundaries largely chosen by the English aristocracy of the 17th Century?” There’s a vast stretch of land past the Mississippi River that the English Aristocracy had no say in the division of past 1776. You could broadly argue that the land West of the original 13 states up to the Mississippi was drawn by the English, but even after independence Americans chose the borders of states like Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, and many more.