Skip to main content

View Diary: If it is not stopped, the Republican war on democracy will tear this nation apart (264 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Re (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sister Havana
    We need the same rules in every state and going by congressional district would probably favor whoever holds the house unless it's a wave election.
    The whole point is that each state can make its own rules for apportioning its electors. It would be unconstitutional and plainly against the spirit of the thing as well to tell states what to do.

    How a state chooses its electors is an internal affair. While I don't like this Republican plan either, I see no reason to deviate from this principle.

    (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
    Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

    by Sparhawk on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 03:20:32 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Not "the whole point." (4+ / 0-)

      The whole point is a system that does not allow a candidate to win the electoral college while losing the popular vote by 4%.  This far super cedes state rights to apportion their electors.

      Since the beginning of the electoral college, neither party has ever attempted this, as far as I know. There's a reason for that. The republicans risk major blow back with this, further erosion of their brand, mid term losses and imo, not a great chance of success in any state.

      "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

      by StellaRay on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 03:37:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Disagree (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nextstep

        There is no reason why a popular vote winner is any more legitimate than an electoral vote winner. The principle is that the states are supposed to select electors, not individual voters. The fact that each state does it this way is more of an accident of history than anything else (and some, like Maine and Nebraska, don't).

        (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
        Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

        by Sparhawk on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 03:51:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  why would a popular vote winner not be any more (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VirginiaBlue, Sarenth

          legitimate than an electoral vote winner?

          it seems that the winner of the popular vote would be the only legitimate winner.  the electoral college is an anachronism that outlived its original purpose long, long ago.

          most of the world's largest democracies award the election to the winner of the popular vote.  it's time we did, too.

          •  Re (0+ / 0-)
            why would a popular vote winner not be any more legitimate than an electoral vote winner?
            Uh, because one of them is the federalized system we have and the other is something else.
            it seems that the winner of the popular vote would be the only legitimate winner.  the electoral college is an anachronism that outlived its original purpose long, long ago.
            If you don't believe in the principle of federalism that our nation is founded upon, sure.
            most of the world's largest democracies award the election to the winner of the popular vote.  it's time we did, too.
            In Britain, the Prime Minister isn't even elected, (s)he is selected by the House of Commons.

            Same thing in Canada (slightly different system).

            In both cases, not one individual vote is cast for the titular head of state. The assumption is that you do that when you elect your local representative.

            (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
            Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

            by Sparhawk on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 05:18:32 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  How unsurprising (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Boreal Ecologist, jts327

          that Sparhawk would be all for dismantling democracy.
          Troll.

          +++ The law is a weapon used to bludgeon us peasants into submission. It is not to be applied to the monied elite.

          by cybersaur on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 04:41:42 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  What democracy (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            nextstep, Mikey

            Many other "democratic" systems that I'm sure you approve of do not allow even a single individual citizen to vote for the head of state (Canada, Britain, and more).

            The head of state is selected by the democratically-elected legislatures in these cases.

            These systems seem to get along just fine without being accused of being anti-democratic despotisms (Britain could do with a few less closed circuit television cameras, but I digress...).

            (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
            Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

            by Sparhawk on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 05:22:52 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Your ingorance is showing. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              cybersaur
              Many other "democratic" systems that I'm sure you approve of do not allow even a single individual citizen to vote for the head of state (Canada, Britain, and more).
              The bolded head of state is not elected at all. She is currently the hereditary Monarch known as Queen Elizabeth II. Maybe you should educate yourself a bit before making such statements.

              There are also a series of court cases that could blast these CD EC schemes. I haven't had time to read every word, but each is a precedent in "one man, one vote" decisions as applied to state imbalances and rather specifically to state efforts to weight the scales to rural voters.

              The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

              by pelagicray on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 12:09:00 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  No, yours is (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                nextstep

                The head of state in Britain in most ways that matter is the prime minister. The Queen or King has little real power, just a figurehead.

                (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
                Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

                by Sparhawk on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 03:24:19 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Wrong Answer. The parlimentary system separates (0+ / 0-)

                  "head of state" from political. One advantage is the HOS, the sort of embodied flag, is focus of that national pride stuff while the legislative power, the prime minister, can be booted without some of the trauma we and others with both features wrapped in one body seem to face.

                  That is the practical reality and the HOS for such countries is most definitely the monarch or elected official serving the function of HOS. By the way, on visiting, those prime ministers do not get the 21 gun salutes their HOS would, so you are just making excuses.

                  The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

                  by pelagicray on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 07:31:42 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    nextstep

                    And in all cases, neither the monarch nor the Prime Minister is directly elected, which is what we are discussing here. Why you continue to muddy the waters with trivial irrelevancies is a mystery to me.

                    (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
                    Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

                    by Sparhawk on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 08:02:52 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Because you mixed apples and oranges, with an (0+ / 0-)

                      error, at the start?

                      The particular problem of mixing both Head of State and elected political leader in systems such as ours is a recognized issue if you do your research. The pro is that our system, with a fixed term for both, provides stability. The con is that we are often stuck with either a completely ineffective or sometimes a corrupt political head for that reason and the reluctance of much of our population to see the embodiment of the State subject of "regicide." Yes, that is a foolish view, but a known factor in our extreme reluctance to use the impeachment process when rather well deserved.

                      Enough. If you don't want to do some self education on the issues of the systems, the pros and cons and the factual blunder of including Britain in the first instance that is your problem.

                      The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

                      by pelagicray on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 09:07:39 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

        •  Here's what's "supposed" to happen: (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ranton

          One person, one vote. You talk about states like they're people too.  To hell with the individual voter, huh?

          "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

          by StellaRay on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 04:55:49 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, what is "supposed" to happen is the state (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            nextstep

            legislature is supposed to select the electors.  The fact that they are chosen by popular vote is just a quirk of history, nothing more.

            You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

            by Throw The Bums Out on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 05:18:44 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sorry, but... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Sparhawk

              This country was founded on the idea that it is a republic made up of states.  No other nation (to my knowledge) puts stars or markers on their flag for each province in their country.  The individual states (and their "rights", though that term was later used as code) were considered to be sacrosanct by the founders.

              The reality is that voters in California and Mississippi have different values and different ways of life, and the entire structure of the nation was setup so that neither could tell the other how to live.

    •  Just another hold-over from those champions of (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VirginiaBlue, ranton, Val

      states' rights -- the slaveholders.  Lincoln was right -- God's going to keep making us pay for that sin forever.

    •  Exactly, if a state wants to declare it's electors (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sister Havana

      automatically go to the Republican candidate for 2016 then they can and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

      You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

      by Throw The Bums Out on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 05:17:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That is, in fact, true (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sister Havana

        As long as the state itself maintains a republican (small r) form of government and the state legislature is duly elected by the people, it absolutely has the power to do that. And people in that state have the power to respond by the ballot box to remove the legislators in question.

        (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
        Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

        by Sparhawk on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 05:38:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Or how about declaring that not only will the (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Zinman

          state's electoral votes go for the Republican candidate but that it is permanent and may not be changed in the future (and that any state resident has standing to challenge any attempt to change it in the future)?

          You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

          by Throw The Bums Out on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 07:39:31 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  How would that happen exactly (0+ / 0-)

            The state is selecting electors, specific human beings who are part of the electoral college. Additionally, per the Constitution, Congress has the power to establish the time of choosing of the electors. In your example, a state would be attempting to choose the electors at a time not of Congress's choosing (illegal).

            So a state could not today declare that the 2016 electors will be particular people, but it could pass a law stating that there would be no statewide election and that the 2016 state legislature would be responsible for choosing the electors.

            (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
            Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

            by Sparhawk on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 04:23:56 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Simply declare that say, Rush Limbaugh or someone (0+ / 0-)

              like that gets to decide the electors and that procedure can never be changed as long as he is still alive and physically able to do so.  Though I have no idea whether the whole "and it can't be changed by a future legislature" part would hold up in court.

              You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

              by Throw The Bums Out on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 12:50:32 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •   (0+ / 0-)

      One man-one vote would negate most of these schemes. Congress actually can tell the states how to run elections. See the 15th AMDT. http://www.law.cornell.edu/...

      The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

      Section 2.
      The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

      Plus

      Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.

      Again congress can enforce these laws through appropiate legislation..

      Plus Womens suffrage 19th amdt.

      The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

      Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

      Arguably the states modified their rights to determine qualifications of electors and districts and ceded many of these powers to congress with these  constitutional amdts.

      The one man-one vote decisions also come into play. (Admittedly stare decisis in the Roberts court has all the staying power of toilet paper in water but the textual spirit of the constitution still favors at least some congressional authority to call foul)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site