Democrats receive more votes for the House than Republicans

[OKTexas]

Gerrymandering is appalling. It is done for the benefit of political parties, not democracy. There is nothing more craven and self-serving than gerrymandering. It should be ended.

That includes gerrymandering based on ethnicity.

Yet the federal courts do it all the time, explain that. The courts require that districts be drawn to improve the chances of a minority being elected all the time.

It's appalling and should be ended.

Tell the libs they're the ones pushing it. I think legislative districts should be as nearly square as possible to encompass the correct number of people, regardless of the racial make up. You wouldn't believe the weird looking districts we have in TX and they were drawn by the courts.

 

[saveliberty]

My interest is to have a better government. The issue that Democrats won this time is not important to me. The coin may flip and next time the situation may reverse.

The only politics that matter today are party politics, and the electoral system should reflect that. Districts do not matter. States do not matter. Since the issue of slavery States have not worked together towards common goals. Only parties matter today.

I believe it is more important to have a representative system than having my side win.

We are now faced with another 2 years of a divided Congress. I rather have the party that won do the best they can and move the country forward.

Also, the problem with this scheme is that Republicans may believe that they have the support of the people since they "conquered" the House. But they are losing groung and the false sense of accomplishment will delay the process of adaptation to the new reality.

Don't hate me because I want what is fair.

Novus

Its a Democratic Republic. Stop your whining.

 

[Trajan]

UNJUST DOMINION
A Government by the Minority

In January, the House of Representatives that will be sworn in will not represent the American People. The House will have 233 Republican representatives and 201 Democratic representatives. However, a straight count of the votes cast for the House shows that about one million more Americans voted Democrat than Republican, with about 58 million voting Republican and 59 million voting Democrat. For the next two years, control of the legislative branch falls in the hands of Congressmen representing a minority of Americans. The minority is set to impose its will on the majority.

Minority control is contrary to the spirit of the national republic created by our Founding Fathers, which envisioned a republic as a nation in which the supreme power rests with all the citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives elected by them and responsible to them. A minority-controlled House was never envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution. In 1788, James Madison said, “It is essential to such a Government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their Government the honorable title of republic. It is sufficient for such a Government that the persons administering it be appointed, either directly or indirectly, by the people; … otherwise every Government in the United States, as well as every other popular Government that has been or can be well organized or well executed, would be degraded from the republican character” (Federalist 39). Maybe James Madison was, not just a brilliant political mind, but also a prophet. Was he referring to those republicans as citizens of a republic, or did he envision the usurpation by the Grand Old Party, the tyrannical nobles of our day?

How did we reach this point where minority representatives are able to exercise their oppressions?

When the Framers met in Philadelphia they envisioned a Government where Americans selected representatives from their neighborhoods and sent them to Washington to act in their best interest. The Framers believed that this Government design would provide representation for all Americans, balancing the natural conflicting interests between the North and the South, farmers and industrialists, big and small states, city dwellers and villagers, etc.

A few years after the Constitution was adopted, political parties emerged as effective associations that allowed citizens with common interests to further their goals using the power of numbers. The idea of political parties was not well received by those who believed that parties would subvert the republican principles. George Washington, in his farewell address of 1796, said, “However combinations or associations of the above description [i.e., parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of Government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

Madison and Washington’s worst fears have become reality. The omnipresence of parties in the political arena has created a situation in which our representative-selection process, which was not designed for political parties, has resulted in the unjust dominion by the Republicans.

Republicans may argue that it is a fair system, that they represent the people that voted for them, that the rules apply equally to all parties, that we are a federation of states, that the next time it may be the other way around, etc. But all those arguments, based on anecdotal facts, cannot overcome the ultimate truth that Republicans exercise, using the words of Washington, an unjust dominion over America’s political life.

We present ourselves to the world as the ultimate holders and defenders of democratic values. But how can we honestly say that we are the best democracy in the world? How can we chastise the savage dictatorship of al-Assad in Syria, the single-choice of so-called democracy in China, the corrupt methods of Putin in Russia, the Banana Republic of Chavez in Venezuela, the religious tyranny of Iran? In the end, all they do is protect the rights of a minority, just like the Republicans. If the Republican minority exercises unjust dominion over the majority, are we any better?

If Republicans want to lead the nation, Republicans must ponder the will of the nation. Selfishly attending to the desires of some arbitrarily-created districts, while ignoring Americans’ will, is morally pervert. The Republicans’ only merit for holding the upper hand is their cunning ability to command the district delineation process. This country’s economic recovery cannot suffer another biennial dysfunctional legislature with House and Senate in permanent disagreement.

The good news is that our Founding Fathers not only created the best political system of the time, but also realized that aiming at perfection is a never-ending process. They included a provision for amending the Constitution to continue improving Government, and to adjust this Government’s contract with the People to the realities of changing times.

It does not seem that political parties will disappear anytime soon. We must accept that political parties are a key component of Government and the system must be adapted to accommodate this reality. Also, no one can deny that the Federalists won and, consequently, we have a monolithic central Government. If Madison saw us today, he would celebrate the strong nation that he helped create, but he would be furious that it is controlled by an elitist minority. Despite the federal intent behind the Tenth Amendment, the states are left with little responsibilities, basically managing police, fire, infrastructure, and real estate. All major policy issues are resolved in Washington. The official-electing processes must be adapted to reflect the reality of national parties and national leaders, instead of sending representatives from arbitrarily-created districts. Let the states select their own Governments democratically, but when it comes to the nation, we should have national elections where all votes carry the same weight.

We have a unique way of selecting representatives based on congressional districts, but other countries have different methods, such as presenting party lists to the electorate. Each party enters a list of representatives, and the number of representatives allocated to the party is based on the number of votes received. If a party gets 20 representatives, the top 20 in the list go to Congress. If they get 30, then 30 go to Congress. Also, the elections of representatives and President are not independent processes, and are interrelated to avoid having a President without the support of Congress. In the UK, the Prime Minister is named by the monarch as the leader of the party or coalition holding the majority of votes in the House of Commons.

Changing to a system that elects a Government supported by the majority of Americans should not be difficult. We must consider that, typically, Americans choose President and Congressmen from the same party. A system that elects the president by national majority vote, and assigns the number of representatives in proportion to the number of votes, would work. Another arrangement where the majority in the House would choose the President could also be effective.

President Obama, called a constitutional scholar by his acolytes, knows that change is possible. In fact, change is what he promised. In 2007, he told us in his Declaration of Candidacy, “the genius of our founders is that they designed a system of Government that can be changed.” Obama must think that our system of Government is perfect because he has not done anything to improve our Constitution. He criticized the federal courts when they declared parts of Obamacare unconstitutional, and also criticized the holding in the landmark case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, where the Supreme Court said that the First Amendment prohibited the Government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions because they are people too. Just criticism, no action. No real steps taken to solve our Constitutional problems. Obama has gone from, “Yes We Can” to the defeatist attitude of, “You can't change Washington from the inside.”

We, the People, have grown accustomed to tolerate an imperfect, sometimes absurd, Government system. We don’t flinch when we hear democratic aberrations such as battleground states, four presidents elected by minority vote, law-making judges, filibusters, judges voting along party lines, superdelegates, corporations are people, 25,000-dollars-a-plate dinners, Super PACs, congressmen flying in corporate jets, etc. Maybe Obama, now facing a contrarian House of Representatives elected by a minority, will be motivated to finally act and Amend to improve our system. We must believe that Washington can change from the inside.

When there is a problem, we fix it. That is the American way. Well, at least for anything in America other than politics. It is time to fix the unjust dominion by the tyrannical nobles of our day. The parties must stop their incessant bickering to start finding common ground and do what’s right, to do what Americans want. Republicans, Democrats, and the President must work together to find the natural common ground of a fair system for all.

Mr. President; Republicans; Democrats – Yes, we can. We can go forward. We can Amend.

whoever the author is, he may want to read up on some history, example- the house was owned by the dems for 47 straight years, using the same mechanism, so I am not moved by the new twist or take on the evils of the process.

 

[daveman]

Remember, when Democrats win, it's clearly the will of the people.

When Republicans win, they stole the election.

Right, USMB lefties?

 

[AceRothstein]

Gerrymandering is appalling. It is done for the benefit of political parties, not democracy. There is nothing more craven and self-serving than gerrymandering. It should be ended.

That includes gerrymandering based on ethnicity.

Yet the federal courts do it all the time, explain that. The courts require that districts be drawn to improve the chances of a minority being elected all the time.

Did you miss the part where he said it should be ended?

 

[Novus]

UNJUST DOMINION
A Government by the Minority

In January, the House of Representatives that will be sworn in will not represent the American People. The House will have 233 Republican representatives and 201 Democratic representatives. However, a straight count of the votes cast for the House shows that about one million more Americans voted Democrat than Republican, with about 58 million voting Republican and 59 million voting Democrat. For the next two years, control of the legislative branch falls in the hands of Congressmen representing a minority of Americans. The minority is set to impose its will on the majority.

Minority control is contrary to the spirit of the national republic created by our Founding Fathers, which envisioned a republic as a nation in which the supreme power rests with all the citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives elected by them and responsible to them. A minority-controlled House was never envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution. In 1788, James Madison said, “It is essential to such a Government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their Government the honorable title of republic. It is sufficient for such a Government that the persons administering it be appointed, either directly or indirectly, by the people; … otherwise every Government in the United States, as well as every other popular Government that has been or can be well organized or well executed, would be degraded from the republican character” (Federalist 39). Maybe James Madison was, not just a brilliant political mind, but also a prophet. Was he referring to those republicans as citizens of a republic, or did he envision the usurpation by the Grand Old Party, the tyrannical nobles of our day?

How did we reach this point where minority representatives are able to exercise their oppressions?

When the Framers met in Philadelphia they envisioned a Government where Americans selected representatives from their neighborhoods and sent them to Washington to act in their best interest. The Framers believed that this Government design would provide representation for all Americans, balancing the natural conflicting interests between the North and the South, farmers and industrialists, big and small states, city dwellers and villagers, etc.

A few years after the Constitution was adopted, political parties emerged as effective associations that allowed citizens with common interests to further their goals using the power of numbers. The idea of political parties was not well received by those who believed that parties would subvert the republican principles. George Washington, in his farewell address of 1796, said, “However combinations or associations of the above description [i.e., parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of Government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

Madison and Washington’s worst fears have become reality. The omnipresence of parties in the political arena has created a situation in which our representative-selection process, which was not designed for political parties, has resulted in the unjust dominion by the Republicans.

Republicans may argue that it is a fair system, that they represent the people that voted for them, that the rules apply equally to all parties, that we are a federation of states, that the next time it may be the other way around, etc. But all those arguments, based on anecdotal facts, cannot overcome the ultimate truth that Republicans exercise, using the words of Washington, an unjust dominion over America’s political life.

We present ourselves to the world as the ultimate holders and defenders of democratic values. But how can we honestly say that we are the best democracy in the world? How can we chastise the savage dictatorship of al-Assad in Syria, the single-choice of so-called democracy in China, the corrupt methods of Putin in Russia, the Banana Republic of Chavez in Venezuela, the religious tyranny of Iran? In the end, all they do is protect the rights of a minority, just like the Republicans. If the Republican minority exercises unjust dominion over the majority, are we any better?

If Republicans want to lead the nation, Republicans must ponder the will of the nation. Selfishly attending to the desires of some arbitrarily-created districts, while ignoring Americans’ will, is morally pervert. The Republicans’ only merit for holding the upper hand is their cunning ability to command the district delineation process. This country’s economic recovery cannot suffer another biennial dysfunctional legislature with House and Senate in permanent disagreement.

The good news is that our Founding Fathers not only created the best political system of the time, but also realized that aiming at perfection is a never-ending process. They included a provision for amending the Constitution to continue improving Government, and to adjust this Government’s contract with the People to the realities of changing times.

It does not seem that political parties will disappear anytime soon. We must accept that political parties are a key component of Government and the system must be adapted to accommodate this reality. Also, no one can deny that the Federalists won and, consequently, we have a monolithic central Government. If Madison saw us today, he would celebrate the strong nation that he helped create, but he would be furious that it is controlled by an elitist minority. Despite the federal intent behind the Tenth Amendment, the states are left with little responsibilities, basically managing police, fire, infrastructure, and real estate. All major policy issues are resolved in Washington. The official-electing processes must be adapted to reflect the reality of national parties and national leaders, instead of sending representatives from arbitrarily-created districts. Let the states select their own Governments democratically, but when it comes to the nation, we should have national elections where all votes carry the same weight.

We have a unique way of selecting representatives based on congressional districts, but other countries have different methods, such as presenting party lists to the electorate. Each party enters a list of representatives, and the number of representatives allocated to the party is based on the number of votes received. If a party gets 20 representatives, the top 20 in the list go to Congress. If they get 30, then 30 go to Congress. Also, the elections of representatives and President are not independent processes, and are interrelated to avoid having a President without the support of Congress. In the UK, the Prime Minister is named by the monarch as the leader of the party or coalition holding the majority of votes in the House of Commons.

Changing to a system that elects a Government supported by the majority of Americans should not be difficult. We must consider that, typically, Americans choose President and Congressmen from the same party. A system that elects the president by national majority vote, and assigns the number of representatives in proportion to the number of votes, would work. Another arrangement where the majority in the House would choose the President could also be effective.

President Obama, called a constitutional scholar by his acolytes, knows that change is possible. In fact, change is what he promised. In 2007, he told us in his Declaration of Candidacy, “the genius of our founders is that they designed a system of Government that can be changed.” Obama must think that our system of Government is perfect because he has not done anything to improve our Constitution. He criticized the federal courts when they declared parts of Obamacare unconstitutional, and also criticized the holding in the landmark case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, where the Supreme Court said that the First Amendment prohibited the Government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions because they are people too. Just criticism, no action. No real steps taken to solve our Constitutional problems. Obama has gone from, “Yes We Can” to the defeatist attitude of, “You can't change Washington from the inside.”

We, the People, have grown accustomed to tolerate an imperfect, sometimes absurd, Government system. We don’t flinch when we hear democratic aberrations such as battleground states, four presidents elected by minority vote, law-making judges, filibusters, judges voting along party lines, superdelegates, corporations are people, 25,000-dollars-a-plate dinners, Super PACs, congressmen flying in corporate jets, etc. Maybe Obama, now facing a contrarian House of Representatives elected by a minority, will be motivated to finally act and Amend to improve our system. We must believe that Washington can change from the inside.

When there is a problem, we fix it. That is the American way. Well, at least for anything in America other than politics. It is time to fix the unjust dominion by the tyrannical nobles of our day. The parties must stop their incessant bickering to start finding common ground and do what’s right, to do what Americans want. Republicans, Democrats, and the President must work together to find the natural common ground of a fair system for all.

Mr. President; Republicans; Democrats – Yes, we can. We can go forward. We can Amend.

whoever the author is, he may want to read up on some history, example- the house was owned by the dems for 47 straight years, using the same mechanism, so I am not moved by the new twist or take on the evils of the process.

You miss the point. Democrats held the house for 47 years because they received more votes than Republicans, not because they manipulated the districting process to gain control with a minority of votes.

 

[Novus]

Remember, when Democrats win, it's clearly the will of the people.

When Republicans win, they stole the election.

Right, USMB lefties?

You seem to argue a point that was never made. Keep it up, if you argue with yourself you will always win (or lose, depends how you look at it)

 

[Novus]

My interest is to have a better government. The issue that Democrats won this time is not important to me. The coin may flip and next time the situation may reverse.

The only politics that matter today are party politics, and the electoral system should reflect that. Districts do not matter. States do not matter. Since the issue of slavery States have not worked together towards common goals. Only parties matter today.

I believe it is more important to have a representative system than having my side win.

We are now faced with another 2 years of a divided Congress. I rather have the party that won do the best they can and move the country forward.

Also, the problem with this scheme is that Republicans may believe that they have the support of the people since they "conquered" the House. But they are losing groung and the false sense of accomplishment will delay the process of adaptation to the new reality.

Don't hate me because I want what is fair.

Novus

Its a Democratic Republic. Stop your whining.

It seems odd that someone using the name saveliberty would oppose a government by the majority. What liberty do we have if a minority imposes its will on the minority?

 

[tinydancer]

My interest is to have a better government. The issue that Democrats won this time is not important to me. The coin may flip and next time the situation may reverse.

The only politics that matter today are party politics, and the electoral system should reflect that. Districts do not matter. States do not matter. Since the issue of slavery States have not worked together towards common goals. Only parties matter today.

I believe it is more important to have a representative system than having my side win.

We are now faced with another 2 years of a divided Congress. I rather have the party that won do the best they can and move the country forward.

Also, the problem with this scheme is that Republicans may believe that they have the support of the people since they "conquered" the House. But they are losing groung and the false sense of accomplishment will delay the process of adaptation to the new reality.

Don't hate me because I want what is fair.

Novus

Its a Democratic Republic. Stop your whining.

It seems odd that someone using the name saveliberty would oppose a government by the majority. What liberty do we have if a minority imposes its will on the minority?

You are a Republic. Not a Democracy.

 

[tinydancer]

Novus, I know this argument really well because 3 leaders of 3 opposition parties who lost to the Conservatives banded together to try to overthrow an election up here in Canada.

Claiming more votes in total.

This is the "new" progressive argument. Yours just has a slightly different spin, but basically the purpose is the same.

To undo an election.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Is there a condensed version of this biography of stupidity?

Christ, what a pile of steaming dog shit.

 

[Novus]

Novus, I know this argument really well because 3 leaders of 3 opposition parties who lost to the Conservatives banded together to try to overthrow an election up here in Canada.

Claiming more votes in total.

This is the "new" progressive argument. Yours just has a slightly different spin, but basically the purpose is the same.

To undo an election.

Thanks but I disagree. The rules were there and the election was won according to the rules. Undoing the election would be a divisive catastrophe. I did not ask for that.

But if we see a systemic problem, we can work a solution to change the rules before the next election so the outcome would be fair under any type of Republic or Democracy.
In todays political environment, district representation is absurd. We have to face the reality of national political parties and national elections. Forget districts.

 

[tinydancer]

You miss the point. Democrats held the house for 47 years because they received more votes than Republicans, not because they manipulated the districting process to gain control with a minority of votes.

How's this manipulation of a district for you? A Republican controlled General Assembly Profile of N.C. gave a district to a Democrat.

Republican N.C. District 12 House candidate Jim Dancy has been campaigning across the district since he filed for office in February, spurred to run when he went to sleep one night in a district represented by a Republican and woke up the next day in a district represented by a Democrat.

New house districts adopted by the Republican-controlled General Assembly moved River Bend out of Rep. Norman Sanderson’s District 3 and into District 12, which was then represented by the now late Democratic Rep. William Wainwright.

Profile of N.C. House candidate Jim Dancy - Local News - The Havelock News

 

[Novus]

You miss the point. Democrats held the house for 47 years because they received more votes than Republicans, not because they manipulated the districting process to gain control with a minority of votes.

How's this manipulation of a district for you? A Republican controlled General Assembly Profile of N.C. gave a district to a Democrat.

Republican N.C. District 12 House candidate Jim Dancy has been campaigning across the district since he filed for office in February, spurred to run when he went to sleep one night in a district represented by a Republican and woke up the next day in a district represented by a Democrat.

New house districts adopted by the Republican-controlled General Assembly moved River Bend out of Rep. Norman Sanderson’s District 3 and into District 12, which was then represented by the now late Democratic Rep. William Wainwright.

Thanks.
As I said before, I am not a liberal. I would love for the process to be rational and improved. The stupidity of it may cut both ways.
Get rid of districits!

 

[Cecilie1200]

UNJUST DOMINION
A Government by the Minority

In January, the House of Representatives that will be sworn in will not represent the American People. The House will have 233 Republican representatives and 201 Democratic representatives. However, a straight count of the votes cast for the House shows that about one million more Americans voted Democrat than Republican, with about 58 million voting Republican and 59 million voting Democrat. For the next two years, control of the legislative branch falls in the hands of Congressmen representing a minority of Americans. The minority is set to impose its will on the majority.

Minority control is contrary to the spirit of the national republic created by our Founding Fathers, which envisioned a republic as a nation in which the supreme power rests with all the citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives elected by them and responsible to them. A minority-controlled House was never envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution. In 1788, James Madison said, “It is essential to such a Government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their Government the honorable title of republic. It is sufficient for such a Government that the persons administering it be appointed, either directly or indirectly, by the people; … otherwise every Government in the United States, as well as every other popular Government that has been or can be well organized or well executed, would be degraded from the republican character” (Federalist 39). Maybe James Madison was, not just a brilliant political mind, but also a prophet. Was he referring to those republicans as citizens of a republic, or did he envision the usurpation by the Grand Old Party, the tyrannical nobles of our day?

How did we reach this point where minority representatives are able to exercise their oppressions?

When the Framers met in Philadelphia they envisioned a Government where Americans selected representatives from their neighborhoods and sent them to Washington to act in their best interest. The Framers believed that this Government design would provide representation for all Americans, balancing the natural conflicting interests between the North and the South, farmers and industrialists, big and small states, city dwellers and villagers, etc.

A few years after the Constitution was adopted, political parties emerged as effective associations that allowed citizens with common interests to further their goals using the power of numbers. The idea of political parties was not well received by those who believed that parties would subvert the republican principles. George Washington, in his farewell address of 1796, said, “However combinations or associations of the above description [i.e., parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of Government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

Madison and Washington’s worst fears have become reality. The omnipresence of parties in the political arena has created a situation in which our representative-selection process, which was not designed for political parties, has resulted in the unjust dominion by the Republicans.

Republicans may argue that it is a fair system, that they represent the people that voted for them, that the rules apply equally to all parties, that we are a federation of states, that the next time it may be the other way around, etc. But all those arguments, based on anecdotal facts, cannot overcome the ultimate truth that Republicans exercise, using the words of Washington, an unjust dominion over America’s political life.

We present ourselves to the world as the ultimate holders and defenders of democratic values. But how can we honestly say that we are the best democracy in the world? How can we chastise the savage dictatorship of al-Assad in Syria, the single-choice of so-called democracy in China, the corrupt methods of Putin in Russia, the Banana Republic of Chavez in Venezuela, the religious tyranny of Iran? In the end, all they do is protect the rights of a minority, just like the Republicans. If the Republican minority exercises unjust dominion over the majority, are we any better?

If Republicans want to lead the nation, Republicans must ponder the will of the nation. Selfishly attending to the desires of some arbitrarily-created districts, while ignoring Americans’ will, is morally pervert. The Republicans’ only merit for holding the upper hand is their cunning ability to command the district delineation process. This country’s economic recovery cannot suffer another biennial dysfunctional legislature with House and Senate in permanent disagreement.

The good news is that our Founding Fathers not only created the best political system of the time, but also realized that aiming at perfection is a never-ending process. They included a provision for amending the Constitution to continue improving Government, and to adjust this Government’s contract with the People to the realities of changing times.

It does not seem that political parties will disappear anytime soon. We must accept that political parties are a key component of Government and the system must be adapted to accommodate this reality. Also, no one can deny that the Federalists won and, consequently, we have a monolithic central Government. If Madison saw us today, he would celebrate the strong nation that he helped create, but he would be furious that it is controlled by an elitist minority. Despite the federal intent behind the Tenth Amendment, the states are left with little responsibilities, basically managing police, fire, infrastructure, and real estate. All major policy issues are resolved in Washington. The official-electing processes must be adapted to reflect the reality of national parties and national leaders, instead of sending representatives from arbitrarily-created districts. Let the states select their own Governments democratically, but when it comes to the nation, we should have national elections where all votes carry the same weight.

We have a unique way of selecting representatives based on congressional districts, but other countries have different methods, such as presenting party lists to the electorate. Each party enters a list of representatives, and the number of representatives allocated to the party is based on the number of votes received. If a party gets 20 representatives, the top 20 in the list go to Congress. If they get 30, then 30 go to Congress. Also, the elections of representatives and President are not independent processes, and are interrelated to avoid having a President without the support of Congress. In the UK, the Prime Minister is named by the monarch as the leader of the party or coalition holding the majority of votes in the House of Commons.

Changing to a system that elects a Government supported by the majority of Americans should not be difficult. We must consider that, typically, Americans choose President and Congressmen from the same party. A system that elects the president by national majority vote, and assigns the number of representatives in proportion to the number of votes, would work. Another arrangement where the majority in the House would choose the President could also be effective.

President Obama, called a constitutional scholar by his acolytes, knows that change is possible. In fact, change is what he promised. In 2007, he told us in his Declaration of Candidacy, “the genius of our founders is that they designed a system of Government that can be changed.” Obama must think that our system of Government is perfect because he has not done anything to improve our Constitution. He criticized the federal courts when they declared parts of Obamacare unconstitutional, and also criticized the holding in the landmark case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, where the Supreme Court said that the First Amendment prohibited the Government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions because they are people too. Just criticism, no action. No real steps taken to solve our Constitutional problems. Obama has gone from, “Yes We Can” to the defeatist attitude of, “You can't change Washington from the inside.”

We, the People, have grown accustomed to tolerate an imperfect, sometimes absurd, Government system. We don’t flinch when we hear democratic aberrations such as battleground states, four presidents elected by minority vote, law-making judges, filibusters, judges voting along party lines, superdelegates, corporations are people, 25,000-dollars-a-plate dinners, Super PACs, congressmen flying in corporate jets, etc. Maybe Obama, now facing a contrarian House of Representatives elected by a minority, will be motivated to finally act and Amend to improve our system. We must believe that Washington can change from the inside.

When there is a problem, we fix it. That is the American way. Well, at least for anything in America other than politics. It is time to fix the unjust dominion by the tyrannical nobles of our day. The parties must stop their incessant bickering to start finding common ground and do what’s right, to do what Americans want. Republicans, Democrats, and the President must work together to find the natural common ground of a fair system for all.

Mr. President; Republicans; Democrats – Yes, we can. We can go forward. We can Amend.

Who. The. FUCK. Let this blithering, flatlining CHIMP in here?

 

[Cecilie1200]

So you would have all policies dictated by the wishes of the major urban areas. The house was intended to be the peoples house, reflective of all the people, not just the ones you happen to agree with. When are you dumb asses going to realize this is not a democracy?

What makes you think whichever prattling dildo this fool cut-and-pasted (without bothering to credit the quote, and therefore plagiarized), let alone THIS anal emanation, understands OR cares about the actual purposes of the Houses of Congress?

It was bad enough when these piles of diseased baboon feces decided there was some apocryphal "popular vote" for the Presidency, without us now dignifying the even-more-laughable idea that the House of Representatives is elected in a gestalt, to represent the nation at large, by a popular vote.

I'd complain that intellectual amoeba like this are allowed to vote, but first someone would have to demonstrate that he has the brain wattage to locate the polling place.

 

[Novus]

So you would have all policies dictated by the wishes of the major urban areas. The house was intended to be the peoples house, reflective of all the people, not just the ones you happen to agree with. When are you dumb asses going to realize this is not a democracy?

What makes you think whichever prattling dildo this fool cut-and-pasted (without bothering to credit the quote, and therefore plagiarized), let alone THIS anal emanation, understands OR cares about the actual purposes of the Houses of Congress?

It was bad enough when these piles of diseased baboon feces decided there was some apocryphal "popular vote" for the Presidency, without us now dignifying the even-more-laughable idea that the House of Representatives is elected in a gestalt, to represent the nation at large, by a popular vote.

I'd complain that intellectual amoeba like this are allowed to vote, but first someone would have to demonstrate that he has the brain wattage to locate the polling place.

If you are going to accuse someone, you should at least give a reason or some proof. I did write my post so a citation was moot.

Regarding all the other unrelated insults, I think that they say more about your character than mine

 

[Cecilie1200]

UNJUST DOMINION
A Government by the Minority

In January, the House of Representatives that will be sworn in will not represent the American People. The House will have 233 Republican representatives and 201 Democratic representatives. However, a straight count of the votes cast for the House shows that about one million more Americans voted Democrat than Republican, with about 58 million voting Republican and 59 million voting Democrat. For the next two years, control of the legislative branch falls in the hands of Congressmen representing a minority of Americans. The minority is set to impose its will on the majority.

Minority control is contrary to the spirit of the national republic created by our Founding Fathers, which envisioned a republic as a nation in which the supreme power rests with all the citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives elected by them and responsible to them. A minority-controlled House was never envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution. In 1788, James Madison said, “It is essential to such a Government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their Government the honorable title of republic. It is sufficient for such a Government that the persons administering it be appointed, either directly or indirectly, by the people; … otherwise every Government in the United States, as well as every other popular Government that has been or can be well organized or well executed, would be degraded from the republican character” (Federalist 39). Maybe James Madison was, not just a brilliant political mind, but also a prophet. Was he referring to those republicans as citizens of a republic, or did he envision the usurpation by the Grand Old Party, the tyrannical nobles of our day?

How did we reach this point where minority representatives are able to exercise their oppressions?

When the Framers met in Philadelphia they envisioned a Government where Americans selected representatives from their neighborhoods and sent them to Washington to act in their best interest. The Framers believed that this Government design would provide representation for all Americans, balancing the natural conflicting interests between the North and the South, farmers and industrialists, big and small states, city dwellers and villagers, etc.

A few years after the Constitution was adopted, political parties emerged as effective associations that allowed citizens with common interests to further their goals using the power of numbers. The idea of political parties was not well received by those who believed that parties would subvert the republican principles. George Washington, in his farewell address of 1796, said, “However combinations or associations of the above description [i.e., parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of Government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

Madison and Washington’s worst fears have become reality. The omnipresence of parties in the political arena has created a situation in which our representative-selection process, which was not designed for political parties, has resulted in the unjust dominion by the Republicans.

Republicans may argue that it is a fair system, that they represent the people that voted for them, that the rules apply equally to all parties, that we are a federation of states, that the next time it may be the other way around, etc. But all those arguments, based on anecdotal facts, cannot overcome the ultimate truth that Republicans exercise, using the words of Washington, an unjust dominion over America’s political life.

We present ourselves to the world as the ultimate holders and defenders of democratic values. But how can we honestly say that we are the best democracy in the world? How can we chastise the savage dictatorship of al-Assad in Syria, the single-choice of so-called democracy in China, the corrupt methods of Putin in Russia, the Banana Republic of Chavez in Venezuela, the religious tyranny of Iran? In the end, all they do is protect the rights of a minority, just like the Republicans. If the Republican minority exercises unjust dominion over the majority, are we any better?

If Republicans want to lead the nation, Republicans must ponder the will of the nation. Selfishly attending to the desires of some arbitrarily-created districts, while ignoring Americans’ will, is morally pervert. The Republicans’ only merit for holding the upper hand is their cunning ability to command the district delineation process. This country’s economic recovery cannot suffer another biennial dysfunctional legislature with House and Senate in permanent disagreement.

The good news is that our Founding Fathers not only created the best political system of the time, but also realized that aiming at perfection is a never-ending process. They included a provision for amending the Constitution to continue improving Government, and to adjust this Government’s contract with the People to the realities of changing times.

It does not seem that political parties will disappear anytime soon. We must accept that political parties are a key component of Government and the system must be adapted to accommodate this reality. Also, no one can deny that the Federalists won and, consequently, we have a monolithic central Government. If Madison saw us today, he would celebrate the strong nation that he helped create, but he would be furious that it is controlled by an elitist minority. Despite the federal intent behind the Tenth Amendment, the states are left with little responsibilities, basically managing police, fire, infrastructure, and real estate. All major policy issues are resolved in Washington. The official-electing processes must be adapted to reflect the reality of national parties and national leaders, instead of sending representatives from arbitrarily-created districts. Let the states select their own Governments democratically, but when it comes to the nation, we should have national elections where all votes carry the same weight.

We have a unique way of selecting representatives based on congressional districts, but other countries have different methods, such as presenting party lists to the electorate. Each party enters a list of representatives, and the number of representatives allocated to the party is based on the number of votes received. If a party gets 20 representatives, the top 20 in the list go to Congress. If they get 30, then 30 go to Congress. Also, the elections of representatives and President are not independent processes, and are interrelated to avoid having a President without the support of Congress. In the UK, the Prime Minister is named by the monarch as the leader of the party or coalition holding the majority of votes in the House of Commons.

Changing to a system that elects a Government supported by the majority of Americans should not be difficult. We must consider that, typically, Americans choose President and Congressmen from the same party. A system that elects the president by national majority vote, and assigns the number of representatives in proportion to the number of votes, would work. Another arrangement where the majority in the House would choose the President could also be effective.

President Obama, called a constitutional scholar by his acolytes, knows that change is possible. In fact, change is what he promised. In 2007, he told us in his Declaration of Candidacy, “the genius of our founders is that they designed a system of Government that can be changed.” Obama must think that our system of Government is perfect because he has not done anything to improve our Constitution. He criticized the federal courts when they declared parts of Obamacare unconstitutional, and also criticized the holding in the landmark case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, where the Supreme Court said that the First Amendment prohibited the Government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions because they are people too. Just criticism, no action. No real steps taken to solve our Constitutional problems. Obama has gone from, “Yes We Can” to the defeatist attitude of, “You can't change Washington from the inside.”

We, the People, have grown accustomed to tolerate an imperfect, sometimes absurd, Government system. We don’t flinch when we hear democratic aberrations such as battleground states, four presidents elected by minority vote, law-making judges, filibusters, judges voting along party lines, superdelegates, corporations are people, 25,000-dollars-a-plate dinners, Super PACs, congressmen flying in corporate jets, etc. Maybe Obama, now facing a contrarian House of Representatives elected by a minority, will be motivated to finally act and Amend to improve our system. We must believe that Washington can change from the inside.

When there is a problem, we fix it. That is the American way. Well, at least for anything in America other than politics. It is time to fix the unjust dominion by the tyrannical nobles of our day. The parties must stop their incessant bickering to start finding common ground and do what’s right, to do what Americans want. Republicans, Democrats, and the President must work together to find the natural common ground of a fair system for all.

Mr. President; Republicans; Democrats – Yes, we can. We can go forward. We can Amend.

whoever the author is, he may want to read up on some history, example- the house was owned by the dems for 47 straight years, using the same mechanism, so I am not moved by the new twist or take on the evils of the process.

You miss the point. Democrats held the house for 47 years because they received more votes than Republicans, not because they manipulated the districting process to gain control with a minority of votes.

And if you believe THAT happy horseshit, I have some bottom land I'd like to sell you. Just don't ask what it's on the bottom OF.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Novus, I know this argument really well because 3 leaders of 3 opposition parties who lost to the Conservatives banded together to try to overthrow an election up here in Canada.

Claiming more votes in total.

This is the "new" progressive argument. Yours just has a slightly different spin, but basically the purpose is the same.

To undo an election.

Thanks but I disagree. The rules were there and the election was won according to the rules. Undoing the election would be a divisive catastrophe. I did not ask for that.

But if we see a systemic problem, we can work a solution to change the rules before the next election so the outcome would be fair under any type of Republic or Democracy.
In todays political environment, district representation is absurd. We have to face the reality of national political parties and national elections. Forget districts.

Exactly what is the "systemic problem" that has your panties all in a ruffle? The fact that conservatives get a voice in government? Or just the fact that people who don't live in New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago get a voice in government? Exactly whose lack of subjugation is the "systemic problem" you're trying to eliminate?

 

[Cecilie1200]

So you would have all policies dictated by the wishes of the major urban areas. The house was intended to be the peoples house, reflective of all the people, not just the ones you happen to agree with. When are you dumb asses going to realize this is not a democracy?

What makes you think whichever prattling dildo this fool cut-and-pasted (without bothering to credit the quote, and therefore plagiarized), let alone THIS anal emanation, understands OR cares about the actual purposes of the Houses of Congress?

It was bad enough when these piles of diseased baboon feces decided there was some apocryphal "popular vote" for the Presidency, without us now dignifying the even-more-laughable idea that the House of Representatives is elected in a gestalt, to represent the nation at large, by a popular vote.

I'd complain that intellectual amoeba like this are allowed to vote, but first someone would have to demonstrate that he has the brain wattage to locate the polling place.

If you are going to accuse someone, you should at least give a reason or some proof. I did write my post so a citation was moot.

Regarding all the other unrelated insults, I think that they say more about your character than mine

If you're looking for applause for having written this long-winded first-grade diatribe rather than having simply been stupid enough to read someone ELSE'S writing of it, you're in the wrong place. I just thought you were stupid. NOW I think you're stupid with way too much time on your hands.

Most people don't compose an entire essay and then post it like they're entering some sort of contest.

My insults were completely related, and had nothing to do with your "character", or lack thereof. They were entirely about your intelligence, or lack thereof.