CDZ Hey left, how do you feel about limiting presidential power?

[sakinago]

I could see the left warmly embracing something that would severely limit Executive Branch power. So long as it was quickly and easily reversible when they (perhaps) some day are again in the majority. But anything that was cast in stone raises a question of whether they could think far enough ahead to not go for it.

Oh they'd be all for that haha. Which is why I'd like a state convention, to set into stone precedents the fed cannot overturn, for at least a long time...until they conveniently forget about them again

 

[rdean]

There was a concept being thrown around during Obamas term, mostly on the right, and it was the idea of a state constitutional convention. Which was designed to reign in the power of anything federal (say the executive branch, and a party controlled legislative branch).

Do you really want trump and a republican congress to have as much power as they do now over your life?

I'll leave it at that for now

Look at all those fucked up southern states. That's where most of the racism and prejudice comes from. No wonder they hate being stopped.

 

[sakinago]

There was a concept being thrown around during Obamas term, mostly on the right, and it was the idea of a state constitutional convention. Which was designed to reign in the power of anything federal (say the executive branch, and a party controlled legislative branch).

Do you really want trump and a republican congress to have as much power as they do now over your life?

I'll leave it at that for now

Look at all those fucked up southern states. That's where most of the racism and prejudice comes from. No wonder they hate being stopped.

It's not all southern states. Your assumption that southern states want to re-institute racism is ridiculous, and frankly offensive to people who live in the south, and most of all, just unintelligent. The biggest kkk populations are in the north. And the small pockets of racism that do exist, are spread pretty evenly across the country. Just an unintelligent comment that shows you don't really care about racism, but it's just a tool for you to use in arguments. A tool of negatively generalizing against a different tribe than yours. So congrats, your guilty of the same damn thing as racists...jackass.

You also show that you don't understand how a constitution of the states works if you believe that institutional racism can be re-introduced. So add a non jackass comment or stay out of it

 

[DonaldFG]

... The federal government has very little impact in our daily lives. The only reason it is discussed here is because of the scale of the message board and the well known figures. If this were the Arizona Republic chat room, we'd be discussing Arpaio and McCain.

Little impact? It sends you or your children to war - usually unnecessary. It generates most of your tax. It helps or hinders education. It helps or hinders truth in the media by control or lack of. It helps or hinders the availability of good jobs and job stability. It helps or hinders your quality of health care. Thus, it helps or hinders your quality of life.

Oh, I'm sorry. You were kidding - right?

 

[DonaldFG]

There was a concept being thrown around during Obamas term, mostly on the right, and it was the idea of a state constitutional convention. Which was designed to reign in the power of anything federal (say the executive branch, and a party controlled legislative branch).

Do you really want trump and a republican congress to have as much power as they do now over your life?

I'll leave it at that for now

I'd rather have a government that has many different parties all vying for power, and thereby limiting the power of others. That's proportional representation.

The only way that has a chance of working is by eliminating the Electoral College and having run off elections where we can vote for multiple choices until a majority vote occurs.

 

[DonaldFG]

There was a concept being thrown around during Obamas term, mostly on the right, and it was the idea of a state constitutional convention. Which was designed to reign in the power of anything federal (say the executive branch, and a party controlled legislative branch).

Do you really want trump and a republican congress to have as much power as they do now over your life?

I'll leave it at that for now

What an awesome thread. I always love it when a person of superior intellect weighs in with a concept such as this. I mean...this outstanding person didn't vote for either Clinton nor Trump. He's clearly smarter than everyone else.

Trump and a republican congress only have as much power as we choose to give them. While we can experience some short term discomfort if members in congress don't hold up their end of the bargain, we've got a built-in remedy. There is nothing like an incompetent demagogue to liven things up for a spell.

Of course, were I a member of the military, I might be somewhat more concerned. It's clear that our PEOTUS is the type of person who has personal insecurities. He's going to make use of the might of our military at some point in an offensive manner.

Now....don't fall off of that perch of yours, oh great one. We wouldn't want you to have to make any decisions.

I have a feeling this is a sarcastic post...I honestly can't tell. I don't think of myself as intellectually superior at all, so don't put that on me in any serious or sarcastic sense. I strive for fairness, and probably fall short often, at least I make an effort to snuff it out. What I think is a fairer form of government is a central government that doesn't have as much power over our every day lives as this one has. Of which a convention of states seems like a really good idea at this time

That depends of how delegates are selected. This is critical for a fair convention.

 

[sakinago]

There was a concept being thrown around during Obamas term, mostly on the right, and it was the idea of a state constitutional convention. Which was designed to reign in the power of anything federal (say the executive branch, and a party controlled legislative branch).

Do you really want trump and a republican congress to have as much power as they do now over your life?

I'll leave it at that for now

I'd rather have a government that has many different parties all vying for power, and thereby limiting the power of others. That's proportional representation.

The only way that has a chance of working is by eliminating the Electoral College and having run off elections where we can vote for multiple choices until a majority vote occurs.

Why would we have to eliminate the electoral college for that?? Makes no sense. If you want to vote for a different party, then vote a different party, you don't have to vote R or D. I also don't believe in majority rules, it's totalitarianism in a different form. Electoral college was set up so population centers are not lording over the entire region, and vice versa.

 

[FA_Q2]

There was a concept being thrown around during Obamas term, mostly on the right, and it was the idea of a state constitutional convention. Which was designed to reign in the power of anything federal (say the executive branch, and a party controlled legislative branch).

Do you really want trump and a republican congress to have as much power as they do now over your life?

I'll leave it at that for now

I'd rather have a government that has many different parties all vying for power, and thereby limiting the power of others. That's proportional representation.

The only way that has a chance of working is by eliminating the Electoral College and having run off elections where we can vote for multiple choices until a majority vote occurs.

Why would we have to eliminate the electoral college for that?? Makes no sense. If you want to vote for a different party, then vote a different party, you don't have to vote R or D. I also don't believe in majority rules, it's totalitarianism in a different form. Electoral college was set up so population centers are not lording over the entire region, and vice versa.

A majority vote for a candidate is not majority rules. It certainly does not seem to apply when we do majority votes for senators or representatives.

He is right about third parties as well. Simply look all over this board to see what the general feelings are on third parties - a vote for the libertarian is a vote for the democrat or those that did not vote for Hillary and instead voted for a third party voted for Trump.

That is the general problem. Lets suppose a fictional race between 3 people with an Up Party, Down Party and a third party: one is a staunch person of the Up Party, the other a hard liner third party that stands on the same principals as the Down Party just does not think they go far enough and the third a moderate Down Party candidate. If 60% of the voters are clear Down party constituents but 30% vote for the third party because that candidate more closely fits their issues, the MINORITY Up Party wins. 60% LOSE to 40% because there were 2 good choices for those that stand on Down Party principals but only one for the other party.

That is asinine and is a structure to keep the two parties in absolute control - no matter what garbage they trow at the people they swallow it out of fear of the other party winning. With runoff voting, those same voters could vote their conscience and the best candidate would win because the vote that was split on one side would be consolidated after the one with the fewest votes was identified. You will not see runoff voting for one sole reason and one reason only - it diminished the 2 party power in making third parties irrelevant.

 

[frigidweirdo]

There was a concept being thrown around during Obamas term, mostly on the right, and it was the idea of a state constitutional convention. Which was designed to reign in the power of anything federal (say the executive branch, and a party controlled legislative branch).

Do you really want trump and a republican congress to have as much power as they do now over your life?

I'll leave it at that for now

I'd rather have a government that has many different parties all vying for power, and thereby limiting the power of others. That's proportional representation.

The only way that has a chance of working is by eliminating the Electoral College and having run off elections where we can vote for multiple choices until a majority vote occurs.

Why would we have to eliminate the electoral college for that?? Makes no sense. If you want to vote for a different party, then vote a different party, you don't have to vote R or D. I also don't believe in majority rules, it's totalitarianism in a different form. Electoral college was set up so population centers are not lording over the entire region, and vice versa.

I'll show you why.

Germany has a two tier system of both FPTP (what the US has) and PR. You'd think people would vote the same for both, right? They don't.

German federal election, 2009 - Wikipedia

This is the 2009 election for Germany's Bundestag.

The CDU/CSU (right wing party, equivalent of the Republicans) gained 38.4% of the FPTP vote. They gained 33.8% of the PR vote. Why did nearly 5% of the electorate vote for the CDU/CSU in a First Part The Post contest, but they didn't vote for them in a Proportional Representation vote?

The same for the SPD (left wing party, equivalent of the Democrats), 27.9% in the FPTP and 23% in the PR vote.

That was 9% of the country choosing to vote for the main two parties in FPTP and not in PR.

The answer is simple. When faced with a contest of "whoever gets the most votes wins, and the losers just lose" people are more likely to vote negatively, vote for the one who will stop the other one from getting into power.

For the 3rd parties the FDP gained 9.4% of the FPTP vote and didn't win a single seat. Wasted votes, right? 9.4% of people said what they wanted and they got nothing.
Die Linke had a little more with 11.1% of the vote, and gained 16 seats. Hardly seems fair that 9.4% of the people want one thing and get nothing whereas 11.1% want something and they get a say in politics.
The Alliance/Greens got 9.2% of the vote and gained one seat. Again, less than the FDP and get more representation.

However the German system is fair.

The FDP gained no FPTP seats, but they gained 14.6% of the PR vote and 15% of the seats.
Die Linke gained 11.9% of the PR vote and 12.2% of the seats
The Alliance/Greens gained 10.7% of the PR vote and 10.9% of the seats.

How fair is that? 10.7% of the country wanted someone to represent them, and 10.9% of the Bundestag is made up of that party, even though in FPTP they only got 9.2% of the vote.

In the US people are always voting negatively, there isn't CHOICE. Every country that has real choice in elections will see 5 parties or more.

Just to pick some random countries that use PR, I'll show you. Dominincan Republic Chamber of Deputies. The Liberation Party has 106 seats, the Modern Revolutionary Party has 42 seats, the Socialist Christian Reformist Party has 18 seats, the Dominican Revolutionary Party has 16 seats and then 6 then 6 other parties have between 1 and 3 seats.

When people got to vote they know their vote counts.

 

[sakinago]

There was a concept being thrown around during Obamas term, mostly on the right, and it was the idea of a state constitutional convention. Which was designed to reign in the power of anything federal (say the executive branch, and a party controlled legislative branch).

Do you really want trump and a republican congress to have as much power as they do now over your life?

I'll leave it at that for now

I'd rather have a government that has many different parties all vying for power, and thereby limiting the power of others. That's proportional representation.

The only way that has a chance of working is by eliminating the Electoral College and having run off elections where we can vote for multiple choices until a majority vote occurs.

Why would we have to eliminate the electoral college for that?? Makes no sense. If you want to vote for a different party, then vote a different party, you don't have to vote R or D. I also don't believe in majority rules, it's totalitarianism in a different form. Electoral college was set up so population centers are not lording over the entire region, and vice versa.

A majority vote for a candidate is not majority rules. It certainly does not seem to apply when we do majority votes for senators or representatives.

He is right about third parties as well. Simply look all over this board to see what the general feelings are on third parties - a vote for the libertarian is a vote for the democrat or those that did not vote for Hillary and instead voted for a third party voted for Trump.

That is the general problem. Lets suppose a fictional race between 3 people with an Up Party, Down Party and a third party: one is a staunch person of the Up Party, the other a hard liner third party that stands on the same principals as the Down Party just does not think they go far enough and the third a moderate Down Party candidate. If 60% of the voters are clear Down party constituents but 30% vote for the third party because that candidate more closely fits their issues, the MINORITY Up Party wins. 60% LOSE to 40% because there were 2 good choices for those that stand on Down Party principals but only one for the other party.

That is asinine and is a structure to keep the two parties in absolute control - no matter what garbage they trow at the people they swallow it out of fear of the other party winning. With runoff voting, those same voters could vote their conscience and the best candidate would win because the vote that was split on one side would be consolidated after the one with the fewest votes was identified. You will not see runoff voting for one sole reason and one reason only - it diminished the 2 party power in making third parties irrelevant.

But again this has nothing to do with the electoral college. The only fact we make two party's relevant is because we keep voting them in. There have been multiple parties in the American system that have died off. Let them die off naturally. If your trying to kill them off through a populist position, than I believe that that is not only short sighted, but principled wrong to do. There is no other reason that third parties aren't as popular as they should be other than people choose not to vote that way, wether it's in an electoral college sense or populist sense. The votes just aren't there, as much as I hate that. But I really do not want populism to take control either, that is a fate 10 fold worse than trump.

I understand what they're saying, it still does not stop the fact that if the American republic wanted third party, they would have voted higher than a 5% for a third party. They did not. It upsets me, but I still believe in the voting power of a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, not the voting power of a democracy.

 

[Coyote]

There was a concept being thrown around during Obamas term, mostly on the right, and it was the idea of a state constitutional convention. Which was designed to reign in the power of anything federal (say the executive branch, and a party controlled legislative branch).

Do you really want trump and a republican congress to have as much power as they do now over your life?

I'll leave it at that for now

The people who put together our Constitution were an incredible - divisive, argumentative, educated, intelligent - group of people. They all had vision.

I do not trust a single politician today to be able to do the same...nor do I honestly trust "the people". I would oppose any constitutional convention or attempt to change the constitution other than by the amendment process we have in place, which makes it difficult...for good reason.

 

[FA_Q2]

There was a concept being thrown around during Obamas term, mostly on the right, and it was the idea of a state constitutional convention. Which was designed to reign in the power of anything federal (say the executive branch, and a party controlled legislative branch).

Do you really want trump and a republican congress to have as much power as they do now over your life?

I'll leave it at that for now

I'd rather have a government that has many different parties all vying for power, and thereby limiting the power of others. That's proportional representation.

The only way that has a chance of working is by eliminating the Electoral College and having run off elections where we can vote for multiple choices until a majority vote occurs.

Why would we have to eliminate the electoral college for that?? Makes no sense. If you want to vote for a different party, then vote a different party, you don't have to vote R or D. I also don't believe in majority rules, it's totalitarianism in a different form. Electoral college was set up so population centers are not lording over the entire region, and vice versa.

A majority vote for a candidate is not majority rules. It certainly does not seem to apply when we do majority votes for senators or representatives.

He is right about third parties as well. Simply look all over this board to see what the general feelings are on third parties - a vote for the libertarian is a vote for the democrat or those that did not vote for Hillary and instead voted for a third party voted for Trump.

That is the general problem. Lets suppose a fictional race between 3 people with an Up Party, Down Party and a third party: one is a staunch person of the Up Party, the other a hard liner third party that stands on the same principals as the Down Party just does not think they go far enough and the third a moderate Down Party candidate. If 60% of the voters are clear Down party constituents but 30% vote for the third party because that candidate more closely fits their issues, the MINORITY Up Party wins. 60% LOSE to 40% because there were 2 good choices for those that stand on Down Party principals but only one for the other party.

That is asinine and is a structure to keep the two parties in absolute control - no matter what garbage they trow at the people they swallow it out of fear of the other party winning. With runoff voting, those same voters could vote their conscience and the best candidate would win because the vote that was split on one side would be consolidated after the one with the fewest votes was identified. You will not see runoff voting for one sole reason and one reason only - it diminished the 2 party power in making third parties irrelevant.

But again this has nothing to do with the electoral college.

I never said that it had anything to do with the EC though there is some connection. Splitting the race into 50 separate races causes something very similar to the FPTP. I did said that eliminating the EC does not change the state of the nations government into a mob rules situation. That is a false narrative and pointless to the argument for/against the EC.

I understand and acknoledge the real argument for the EC is that smaller states and the residents within lose a lot of influence to those states with larger populations. I disagree with it though based on the current battleground state of our elections. It shows that the same problem that we are worried about without the EC exists with it as well but, IMHO, at an even grater extent.

The only fact we make two party's relevant is because we keep voting them in.

As pointed out, the system we follow encourages that reality and I have shown why. This has even happened in the past where a third party will cause a majority of the nation to outright lose the election.

There have been multiple parties in the American system that have died off. Let them die off naturally. If your trying to kill them off through a populist position, than I believe that that is not only short sighted, but principled wrong to do.

Never said anything about killing them off with a populist position. I did say that I want to put the power back into the voters hands and allow them to actually vote for who they want to win rather than voting because they are afraid of the other candidate.

I would counter that protecting the party system with laws and systems that corral voters based on fear is the wrong principaled thing to do.

There is no other reason that third parties aren't as popular as they should be other than people choose not to vote that way, wether it's in an electoral college sense or populist sense. The votes just aren't there, as much as I hate that. But I really do not want populism to take control either, that is a fate 10 fold worse than trump.

Again, I just showed why that statement is false.

I understand what they're saying, it still does not stop the fact that if the American republic wanted third party, they would have voted higher than a 5% for a third party. They did not. It upsets me, but I still believe in the voting power of a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, not the voting power of a democracy.

I believe in the voting power of a constitutional republic as well. That is why I have stated nowhere whatsoever that I wish the constitutional republic nature of our government be changed.

2 points here:
The thrust of my post was around the instant runoff voting system and not the EC. You seem to be conflating the two issues. Moving to an instant runoff voting system can be done with the EC in place though I think it would be less effective.

As far as the EC goes, it is not what makes us a republic. The fact that we vote for representatives to make law rather than on law directly does. The EC has literally nothing to do with that. The EC is simply a system for tallying the votes for the representatives. It simply balances the influence from heavily populated regions more evenly with those that do not have as much population.

 

[DonaldFG]

There was a concept being thrown around during Obamas term, mostly on the right, and it was the idea of a state constitutional convention. Which was designed to reign in the power of anything federal (say the executive branch, and a party controlled legislative branch).

Do you really want trump and a republican congress to have as much power as they do now over your life?

I'll leave it at that for now

I'd rather have a government that has many different parties all vying for power, and thereby limiting the power of others. That's proportional representation.

The only way that has a chance of working is by eliminating the Electoral College and having run off elections where we can vote for multiple choices until a majority vote occurs.

Why would we have to eliminate the electoral college for that?? Makes no sense. If you want to vote for a different party, then vote a different party, you don't have to vote R or D. I also don't believe in majority rules, it's totalitarianism in a different form. Electoral college was set up so population centers are not lording over the entire region, and vice versa.

A majority vote for a candidate is not majority rules. It certainly does not seem to apply when we do majority votes for senators or representatives.

He is right about third parties as well. Simply look all over this board to see what the general feelings are on third parties - a vote for the libertarian is a vote for the democrat or those that did not vote for Hillary and instead voted for a third party voted for Trump.

That is the general problem. Lets suppose a fictional race between 3 people with an Up Party, Down Party and a third party: one is a staunch person of the Up Party, the other a hard liner third party that stands on the same principals as the Down Party just does not think they go far enough and the third a moderate Down Party candidate. If 60% of the voters are clear Down party constituents but 30% vote for the third party because that candidate more closely fits their issues, the MINORITY Up Party wins. 60% LOSE to 40% because there were 2 good choices for those that stand on Down Party principals but only one for the other party.

That is asinine and is a structure to keep the two parties in absolute control - no matter what garbage they trow at the people they swallow it out of fear of the other party winning. With runoff voting, those same voters could vote their conscience and the best candidate would win because the vote that was split on one side would be consolidated after the one with the fewest votes was identified. You will not see runoff voting for one sole reason and one reason only - it diminished the 2 party power in making third parties irrelevant.

There was a concept being thrown around during Obamas term, mostly on the right, and it was the idea of a state constitutional convention. Which was designed to reign in the power of anything federal (say the executive branch, and a party controlled legislative branch).

Do you really want trump and a republican congress to have as much power as they do now over your life?

I'll leave it at that for now

I'd rather have a government that has many different parties all vying for power, and thereby limiting the power of others. That's proportional representation.

The only way that has a chance of working is by eliminating the Electoral College and having run off elections where we can vote for multiple choices until a majority vote occurs.

Why would we have to eliminate the electoral college for that?? Makes no sense. If you want to vote for a different party, then vote a different party, you don't have to vote R or D. I also don't believe in majority rules, it's totalitarianism in a different form. Electoral college was set up so population centers are not lording over the entire region, and vice versa.

A majority vote for a candidate is not majority rules. It certainly does not seem to apply when we do majority votes for senators or representatives.

He is right about third parties as well. Simply look all over this board to see what the general feelings are on third parties - a vote for the libertarian is a vote for the democrat or those that did not vote for Hillary and instead voted for a third party voted for Trump.

That is the general problem. Lets suppose a fictional race between 3 people with an Up Party, Down Party and a third party: one is a staunch person of the Up Party, the other a hard liner third party that stands on the same principals as the Down Party just does not think they go far enough and the third a moderate Down Party candidate. If 60% of the voters are clear Down party constituents but 30% vote for the third party because that candidate more closely fits their issues, the MINORITY Up Party wins. 60% LOSE to 40% because there were 2 good choices for those that stand on Down Party principals but only one for the other party.

That is asinine and is a structure to keep the two parties in absolute control - no matter what garbage they trow at the people they swallow it out of fear of the other party winning. With runoff voting, those same voters could vote their conscience and the best candidate would win because the vote that was split on one side would be consolidated after the one with the fewest votes was identified. You will not see runoff voting for one sole reason and one reason only - it diminished the 2 party power in making third parties irrelevant.

But again this has nothing to do with the electoral college. The only fact we make two party's relevant is because we keep voting them in. There have been multiple parties in the American system that have died off. Let them die off naturally. If your trying to kill them off through a populist position, than I believe that that is not only short sighted, but principled wrong to do. There is no other reason that third parties aren't as popular as they should be other than people choose not to vote that way, wether it's in an electoral college sense or populist sense. The votes just aren't there, as much as I hate that. But I really do not want populism to take control either, that is a fate 10 fold worse than trump.

I understand what they're saying, it still does not stop the fact that if the American republic wanted third party, they would have voted higher than a 5% for a third party. They did not. It upsets me, but I still believe in the voting power of a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, not the voting power of a democracy.

They have voted higher percentages for third parties in the past, but it's extremely difficult to get enough citizens to do that. This takes almost everyone to get involved and few citizens want to. It's like the super-majority in Congress to override vetoes, etc.

Frankly, I think political parties are a detriment to democracy. We would be better off without them. And majority rule is the only way to stop mass abuse by minority rule as we currently are enduring.

In my opinion, states with small numbers of citizens get too much power through the Electoral College. True equality and freedom requires one person, one vote. Fear of the majority is unfounded.

 

[sakinago]

There was a concept being thrown around during Obamas term, mostly on the right, and it was the idea of a state constitutional convention. Which was designed to reign in the power of anything federal (say the executive branch, and a party controlled legislative branch).

Do you really want trump and a republican congress to have as much power as they do now over your life?

I'll leave it at that for now

The people who put together our Constitution were an incredible - divisive, argumentative, educated, intelligent - group of people. They all had vision.

I do not trust a single politician today to be able to do the same...nor do I honestly trust "the people". I would oppose any constitutional convention or attempt to change the constitution other than by the amendment process we have in place, which makes it difficult...for good reason.

I completely understand this point of view. I share the same sentiments about our politicians. But the alternative is, we keep letting the fed bully around state and local governments, and the fed keeps on ignoring the constitution like they are now and have been in many years. For something to pass in a state con-con, all parties involved would have to agree on the same thing, so you would never see anything like a 2nd amendment repeal. Where these STATE reps can probably find that middle ground is in limiting federal power in the leg, exec, and judicial branches. Fresh off Obamas term for the right, and just getting into trumps term for the left. It would be a win win for the states, states like Texas and California alike.

 

[sakinago]

There was a concept being thrown around during Obamas term, mostly on the right, and it was the idea of a state constitutional convention. Which was designed to reign in the power of anything federal (say the executive branch, and a party controlled legislative branch).

Do you really want trump and a republican congress to have as much power as they do now over your life?

I'll leave it at that for now

I'd rather have a government that has many different parties all vying for power, and thereby limiting the power of others. That's proportional representation.

The only way that has a chance of working is by eliminating the Electoral College and having run off elections where we can vote for multiple choices until a majority vote occurs.

Why would we have to eliminate the electoral college for that?? Makes no sense. If you want to vote for a different party, then vote a different party, you don't have to vote R or D. I also don't believe in majority rules, it's totalitarianism in a different form. Electoral college was set up so population centers are not lording over the entire region, and vice versa.

A majority vote for a candidate is not majority rules. It certainly does not seem to apply when we do majority votes for senators or representatives.

He is right about third parties as well. Simply look all over this board to see what the general feelings are on third parties - a vote for the libertarian is a vote for the democrat or those that did not vote for Hillary and instead voted for a third party voted for Trump.

That is the general problem. Lets suppose a fictional race between 3 people with an Up Party, Down Party and a third party: one is a staunch person of the Up Party, the other a hard liner third party that stands on the same principals as the Down Party just does not think they go far enough and the third a moderate Down Party candidate. If 60% of the voters are clear Down party constituents but 30% vote for the third party because that candidate more closely fits their issues, the MINORITY Up Party wins. 60% LOSE to 40% because there were 2 good choices for those that stand on Down Party principals but only one for the other party.

That is asinine and is a structure to keep the two parties in absolute control - no matter what garbage they trow at the people they swallow it out of fear of the other party winning. With runoff voting, those same voters could vote their conscience and the best candidate would win because the vote that was split on one side would be consolidated after the one with the fewest votes was identified. You will not see runoff voting for one sole reason and one reason only - it diminished the 2 party power in making third parties irrelevant.

I'd rather have a government that has many different parties all vying for power, and thereby limiting the power of others. That's proportional representation.

The only way that has a chance of working is by eliminating the Electoral College and having run off elections where we can vote for multiple choices until a majority vote occurs.

Why would we have to eliminate the electoral college for that?? Makes no sense. If you want to vote for a different party, then vote a different party, you don't have to vote R or D. I also don't believe in majority rules, it's totalitarianism in a different form. Electoral college was set up so population centers are not lording over the entire region, and vice versa.

A majority vote for a candidate is not majority rules. It certainly does not seem to apply when we do majority votes for senators or representatives.

He is right about third parties as well. Simply look all over this board to see what the general feelings are on third parties - a vote for the libertarian is a vote for the democrat or those that did not vote for Hillary and instead voted for a third party voted for Trump.

That is the general problem. Lets suppose a fictional race between 3 people with an Up Party, Down Party and a third party: one is a staunch person of the Up Party, the other a hard liner third party that stands on the same principals as the Down Party just does not think they go far enough and the third a moderate Down Party candidate. If 60% of the voters are clear Down party constituents but 30% vote for the third party because that candidate more closely fits their issues, the MINORITY Up Party wins. 60% LOSE to 40% because there were 2 good choices for those that stand on Down Party principals but only one for the other party.

That is asinine and is a structure to keep the two parties in absolute control - no matter what garbage they trow at the people they swallow it out of fear of the other party winning. With runoff voting, those same voters could vote their conscience and the best candidate would win because the vote that was split on one side would be consolidated after the one with the fewest votes was identified. You will not see runoff voting for one sole reason and one reason only - it diminished the 2 party power in making third parties irrelevant.

But again this has nothing to do with the electoral college. The only fact we make two party's relevant is because we keep voting them in. There have been multiple parties in the American system that have died off. Let them die off naturally. If your trying to kill them off through a populist position, than I believe that that is not only short sighted, but principled wrong to do. There is no other reason that third parties aren't as popular as they should be other than people choose not to vote that way, wether it's in an electoral college sense or populist sense. The votes just aren't there, as much as I hate that. But I really do not want populism to take control either, that is a fate 10 fold worse than trump.

I understand what they're saying, it still does not stop the fact that if the American republic wanted third party, they would have voted higher than a 5% for a third party. They did not. It upsets me, but I still believe in the voting power of a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, not the voting power of a democracy.

They have voted higher percentages for third parties in the past, but it's extremely difficult to get enough citizens to do that. This takes almost everyone to get involved and few citizens want to. It's like the super-majority in Congress to override vetoes, etc.

Frankly, I think political parties are a detriment to democracy. We would be better off without them. And majority rule is the only way to stop mass abuse by minority rule as we currently are enduring.

In my opinion, states with small numbers of citizens get too much power through the Electoral College. True equality and freedom requires one person, one vote. Fear of the majority is unfounded.

How can you complain about majority power, then post "fear of the majority is unfounded"? Even though many many times in history, including our own history, has proven otherwise. Remember political parties are private entities. Yes they are in power currently. Yes they do skew rules in their favor to shut out other candidates (as we have seen with both Ron Paul and Bernie sanders). But changes to these parties should not come from the top, or in other words the Fed, that would just create one single entity with the power to skew rules in their favor. Changes in these parties need to come from bottom up, within the party. The problem isn't the fact that they are too difficult to dethrone, the problem is that actual rhetoric (in its truest sense, not the way that term is used today) is dead for so many people. Both sides are too caught up in spewing whatever their leadership tells them too, and too many people don't think for themselves. The only way you can kill rhetoric, actual debate, reasoning, and ability to see things from a different perspective that gets people thinking for themselves, is through the education system, particularly our university's. This is further perpetuated by our media systems, who have just become employees of their particular party. A majority of the voices on the left and right are monolithic, more so with the left which has the misnomer of being "liberal". There is a stark lack of diversity in positions and thinking on both sides, which is why we see the 2 party system in power today. People don't think for themselves, period, this is strictly a symptom of being taught what to think, not how to think.

Our "debates" have devolved straw men, a priori, ad hominem, red herring, and appeal to authority arguments. The only culprit to look at is our education system, that's it. There's a lack of self awareness on both sides, this is a symptom of putting interests in front of principles. In other words, I'm going to say or do whatever further benefits me or my party. Again the education system is to blame. And we want to make our education system even more top down than it already is??? No thank you. Teach people how to think for themselves, and let the pieces fall where they may.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I don't think limits or expansions of truly have a damn thing to do with one's being left or right. The issue is that of what constitutes the appropriate proportionality of power and authority sharing among the three branches of the federal government. The best answer and solutions for managing that balance will be the same no matter what party holds political sway at any given point in time.

I think it wholly disingenuous and civically irresponsible to cast or discuss the matter as a partisan one.

 

[sakinago]

I'd rather have a government that has many different parties all vying for power, and thereby limiting the power of others. That's proportional representation.

The only way that has a chance of working is by eliminating the Electoral College and having run off elections where we can vote for multiple choices until a majority vote occurs.

Why would we have to eliminate the electoral college for that?? Makes no sense. If you want to vote for a different party, then vote a different party, you don't have to vote R or D. I also don't believe in majority rules, it's totalitarianism in a different form. Electoral college was set up so population centers are not lording over the entire region, and vice versa.

A majority vote for a candidate is not majority rules. It certainly does not seem to apply when we do majority votes for senators or representatives.

He is right about third parties as well. Simply look all over this board to see what the general feelings are on third parties - a vote for the libertarian is a vote for the democrat or those that did not vote for Hillary and instead voted for a third party voted for Trump.

That is the general problem. Lets suppose a fictional race between 3 people with an Up Party, Down Party and a third party: one is a staunch person of the Up Party, the other a hard liner third party that stands on the same principals as the Down Party just does not think they go far enough and the third a moderate Down Party candidate. If 60% of the voters are clear Down party constituents but 30% vote for the third party because that candidate more closely fits their issues, the MINORITY Up Party wins. 60% LOSE to 40% because there were 2 good choices for those that stand on Down Party principals but only one for the other party.

That is asinine and is a structure to keep the two parties in absolute control - no matter what garbage they trow at the people they swallow it out of fear of the other party winning. With runoff voting, those same voters could vote their conscience and the best candidate would win because the vote that was split on one side would be consolidated after the one with the fewest votes was identified. You will not see runoff voting for one sole reason and one reason only - it diminished the 2 party power in making third parties irrelevant.

But again this has nothing to do with the electoral college.

I never said that it had anything to do with the EC though there is some connection. Splitting the race into 50 separate races causes something very similar to the FPTP. I did said that eliminating the EC does not change the state of the nations government into a mob rules situation. That is a false narrative and pointless to the argument for/against the EC.

I understand and acknoledge the real argument for the EC is that smaller states and the residents within lose a lot of influence to those states with larger populations. I disagree with it though based on the current battleground state of our elections. It shows that the same problem that we are worried about without the EC exists with it as well but, IMHO, at an even grater extent.

The only fact we make two party's relevant is because we keep voting them in.

As pointed out, the system we follow encourages that reality and I have shown why. This has even happened in the past where a third party will cause a majority of the nation to outright lose the election.

There have been multiple parties in the American system that have died off. Let them die off naturally. If your trying to kill them off through a populist position, than I believe that that is not only short sighted, but principled wrong to do.

Never said anything about killing them off with a populist position. I did say that I want to put the power back into the voters hands and allow them to actually vote for who they want to win rather than voting because they are afraid of the other candidate.

I would counter that protecting the party system with laws and systems that corral voters based on fear is the wrong principaled thing to do.

There is no other reason that third parties aren't as popular as they should be other than people choose not to vote that way, wether it's in an electoral college sense or populist sense. The votes just aren't there, as much as I hate that. But I really do not want populism to take control either, that is a fate 10 fold worse than trump.

Again, I just showed why that statement is false.

I understand what they're saying, it still does not stop the fact that if the American republic wanted third party, they would have voted higher than a 5% for a third party. They did not. It upsets me, but I still believe in the voting power of a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, not the voting power of a democracy.

I believe in the voting power of a constitutional republic as well. That is why I have stated nowhere whatsoever that I wish the constitutional republic nature of our government be changed.

2 points here:
The thrust of my post was around the instant runoff voting system and not the EC. You seem to be conflating the two issues. Moving to an instant runoff voting system can be done with the EC in place though I think it would be less effective.

As far as the EC goes, it is not what makes us a republic. The fact that we vote for representatives to make law rather than on law directly does. The EC has literally nothing to do with that. The EC is simply a system for tallying the votes for the representatives. It simply balances the influence from heavily populated regions more evenly with those that do not have as much population.

You're ignoring the fact that many different regions have many different needs and beliefs. Especially in America, we are the most diverse nation in the world. To diminish a states power, and in turn increase another states power, is to place priority of one region over another. Again we are not a democracy, we are a constitutional republic.

Our constitutional republic was set up to firstly, greatly diminish the power of governance of any entity over individuals (BOR is a list of NEGATIVE rights forced upon government). Secondly to limit the central governments power over the states, see 9th and 10th amendment. This is an area we have gone away from, and was put in place to make sure a state with a higher population say New York, is not out there telling folks up in a lesser population state like Maine to live. Giving power to more condensed populations destroys that balance that is to be maintained in a republic. To counter act lesser populated regions ruling over more condensed ones, is the HOR. To in turn counter the population based HOR, is the state based senate. The senate for a long time was supposed to be elected by state representatives, taking power away from population centers of states and giving more power to local governments. But we have done away with this, and now Senates are more subject to majority rules.

As you can see above, our republic was set up to keep in check the power of majority rules, which our founders greatly warned against for good reason. Our constitution was very clearly set up to be a bottom up system, where FarmVille USA lives the way they want to, and big city USA lives the way they want to, East coast lives the way they want to, west coast lives the way they want to...as long as each government entity operates within the guidelines of the BOR/constitution. We obviously have gotten away from that, which is why I posted this thread

 

[usmbguest5318]

Our constitutional republic was set up to firstly, greatly diminish the power of governance of any entity over individuals (BOR is a list of NEGATIVE rights forced upon government).

That's the romanticized view of it.. Pragmatically, the Founders sought mostly to establish a form of governance that enabled and intervened little in one's "pursuit of happiness" in two key dimensions:

• Right of religious self expression -- There were two distinct categories of colonial settlers who came to England's colonies: those who wanted to break with the Church of England and those who wanted to establish a "purified" implementation of the Church of England
• Economic riches -- The whole point for colonists to immigrate to the Southern colonies was for economic gain. The land grants given to enterprising colonists along with the temperate weather and fertile soil pretty much guaranteed their prosperity to extents that were impossible for non-peers to achieve in England.

By the late 18th century, the issue the colonists had with the Crown wasn't that individuals were unfairly burdened in any way other than by having to pay Parliament's taxes and receiving no representation in Parliament. Quite simply, had King George simply given the colonies some seats in the houses of Lords and Commons, the British colonies would have remained part of the England. The social and political rights in the BOR aren't terribly different from those enjoyed by the British nobility; however, the Founders designed their government so that there'd be just enough confusion and discord so that amidst it all entrepreneurs could just "keep on keepin' on" with their profit making, arguing all the while. As for the religious thing, the colonists, though they had their individual views on it, they weren't about to let notions of a god and the hereafter interfere with profit making and economic trade in the here and now.

Our constitution was very clearly set up to be a bottom up system, where FarmVille USA lives the way they want to, and big city USA lives the way they want to

Bottom up. Top down. Which it is is irrelevant. What matters is that the U.S. was designed as a place where the little guy could become a titan of commerce and where existing titans of commerce were predominantly ensured of facing little that put the primacy at risk. The intent was to facilitate parity between the mechanized enterprise and agrarian ones. The thriving shipmaker or fishery should not be given political superiority over the plantation holder.

 

[FA_Q2]

The only way that has a chance of working is by eliminating the Electoral College and having run off elections where we can vote for multiple choices until a majority vote occurs.

Why would we have to eliminate the electoral college for that?? Makes no sense. If you want to vote for a different party, then vote a different party, you don't have to vote R or D. I also don't believe in majority rules, it's totalitarianism in a different form. Electoral college was set up so population centers are not lording over the entire region, and vice versa.

A majority vote for a candidate is not majority rules. It certainly does not seem to apply when we do majority votes for senators or representatives.

He is right about third parties as well. Simply look all over this board to see what the general feelings are on third parties - a vote for the libertarian is a vote for the democrat or those that did not vote for Hillary and instead voted for a third party voted for Trump.

That is the general problem. Lets suppose a fictional race between 3 people with an Up Party, Down Party and a third party: one is a staunch person of the Up Party, the other a hard liner third party that stands on the same principals as the Down Party just does not think they go far enough and the third a moderate Down Party candidate. If 60% of the voters are clear Down party constituents but 30% vote for the third party because that candidate more closely fits their issues, the MINORITY Up Party wins. 60% LOSE to 40% because there were 2 good choices for those that stand on Down Party principals but only one for the other party.

That is asinine and is a structure to keep the two parties in absolute control - no matter what garbage they trow at the people they swallow it out of fear of the other party winning. With runoff voting, those same voters could vote their conscience and the best candidate would win because the vote that was split on one side would be consolidated after the one with the fewest votes was identified. You will not see runoff voting for one sole reason and one reason only - it diminished the 2 party power in making third parties irrelevant.

But again this has nothing to do with the electoral college.

I never said that it had anything to do with the EC though there is some connection. Splitting the race into 50 separate races causes something very similar to the FPTP. I did said that eliminating the EC does not change the state of the nations government into a mob rules situation. That is a false narrative and pointless to the argument for/against the EC.

I understand and acknoledge the real argument for the EC is that smaller states and the residents within lose a lot of influence to those states with larger populations. I disagree with it though based on the current battleground state of our elections. It shows that the same problem that we are worried about without the EC exists with it as well but, IMHO, at an even grater extent.

The only fact we make two party's relevant is because we keep voting them in.

As pointed out, the system we follow encourages that reality and I have shown why. This has even happened in the past where a third party will cause a majority of the nation to outright lose the election.

There have been multiple parties in the American system that have died off. Let them die off naturally. If your trying to kill them off through a populist position, than I believe that that is not only short sighted, but principled wrong to do.

Never said anything about killing them off with a populist position. I did say that I want to put the power back into the voters hands and allow them to actually vote for who they want to win rather than voting because they are afraid of the other candidate.

I would counter that protecting the party system with laws and systems that corral voters based on fear is the wrong principaled thing to do.

There is no other reason that third parties aren't as popular as they should be other than people choose not to vote that way, wether it's in an electoral college sense or populist sense. The votes just aren't there, as much as I hate that. But I really do not want populism to take control either, that is a fate 10 fold worse than trump.

Again, I just showed why that statement is false.

I understand what they're saying, it still does not stop the fact that if the American republic wanted third party, they would have voted higher than a 5% for a third party. They did not. It upsets me, but I still believe in the voting power of a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, not the voting power of a democracy.

I believe in the voting power of a constitutional republic as well. That is why I have stated nowhere whatsoever that I wish the constitutional republic nature of our government be changed.

2 points here:
The thrust of my post was around the instant runoff voting system and not the EC. You seem to be conflating the two issues. Moving to an instant runoff voting system can be done with the EC in place though I think it would be less effective.

As far as the EC goes, it is not what makes us a republic. The fact that we vote for representatives to make law rather than on law directly does. The EC has literally nothing to do with that. The EC is simply a system for tallying the votes for the representatives. It simply balances the influence from heavily populated regions more evenly with those that do not have as much population.

You're ignoring the fact that many different regions have many different needs and beliefs. Especially in America, we are the most diverse nation in the world. To diminish a states power, and in turn increase another states power, is to place priority of one region over another. Again we are not a democracy, we are a constitutional republic.

That is actually what we do now, diminish the power of one state over another.

Changing the way that we vote for president does not really change that either - the balance of power is rooted in congress where regional powers mean more than popularity of a particular region.

AGAIN, the EC does not make us a republic. You keep demanding that my position does not recognize we are a republic. It does.

Our constitutional republic was set up to firstly, greatly diminish the power of governance of any entity over individuals (BOR is a list of NEGATIVE rights forced upon government). Secondly to limit the central governments power over the states, see 9th and 10th amendment. This is an area we have gone away from, and was put in place to make sure a state with a higher population say New York, is not out there telling folks up in a lesser population state like Maine to live. Giving power to more condensed populations destroys that balance that is to be maintained in a republic. To counter act lesser populated regions ruling over more condensed ones, is the HOR. To in turn counter the population based HOR, is the state based senate. The senate for a long time was supposed to be elected by state representatives, taking power away from population centers of states and giving more power to local governments. But we have done away with this, and now Senates are more subject to majority rules.

I agree.

None of that has anything to do with my position here.

As you can see above, our republic was set up to keep in check the power of majority rules, which our founders greatly warned against for good reason. Our constitution was very clearly set up to be a bottom up system, where FarmVille USA lives the way they want to, and big city USA lives the way they want to, East coast lives the way they want to, west coast lives the way they want to...as long as each government entity operates within the guidelines of the BOR/constitution. We obviously have gotten away from that, which is why I posted this thread

Again, I agree. I do not know why you are responding to me with this though.

 

[sakinago]

Our constitutional republic was set up to firstly, greatly diminish the power of governance of any entity over individuals (BOR is a list of NEGATIVE rights forced upon government).

That's the romanticized view of it.. Pragmatically, the Founders sought mostly to establish a form of governance that enabled and intervened little in one's "pursuit of happiness" in two key dimensions:

• Right of religious self expression -- There were two distinct categories of colonial settlers who came to England's colonies: those who wanted to break with the Church of England and those who wanted to establish a "purified" implementation of the Church of England
• Economic riches -- The whole point for colonists to immigrate to the Southern colonies was for economic gain. The land grants given to enterprising colonists along with the temperate weather and fertile soil pretty much guaranteed their prosperity to extents that were impossible for non-peers to achieve in England.

By the late 18th century, the issue the colonists had with the Crown wasn't that individuals were unfairly burdened in any way other than by having to pay Parliament's taxes and receiving no representation in Parliament. Quite simply, had King George simply given the colonies some seats in the houses of Lords and Commons, the British colonies would have remained part of the England. The social and political rights in the BOR aren't terribly different from those enjoyed by the British nobility; however, the Founders designed their government so that there'd be just enough confusion and discord so that amidst it all entrepreneurs could just "keep on keepin' on" with their profit making, arguing all the while. As for the religious thing, the colonists, though they had their individual views on it, they weren't about to let notions of a god and the hereafter interfere with profit making and economic trade in the here and now.

Our constitution was very clearly set up to be a bottom up system, where FarmVille USA lives the way they want to, and big city USA lives the way they want to

Bottom up. Top down. Which it is is irrelevant. What matters is that the U.S. was designed as a place where the little guy could become a titan of commerce and where existing titans of commerce were predominantly ensured of facing little that put the primacy at risk. The intent was to facilitate parity between the mechanized enterprise and agrarian ones. The thriving shipmaker or fishery should not be given political superiority over the plantation holder.

This is all utter here-say. Using some historical tid bits of info to support an alternative history of the founders intentions, in one huge non-sequitur revisionist history statement. The intentions of the founders were very clear. Not only in the BOR, DOI, and constitution, which you made almost no mention of in your alternate universe. But also in the founders writings, letters, and historical accounts of their actions, of which you have to completely ignore to support your theory passed down to you by some college professor. How can you claim different intentions attributed to the founders, when they clearly wrote out what their actual intentions were over and over?? In debate after debate, letter after letter, book after book. We can very easily see what their intentions were, even outside of the BOR, DOI, and constitution, which clearly lays it out for us.