Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2020 12:16:16 GMT -5
I'm happy to say that I'm mostly ignorant of the detailed history. I believe I made that very statement.
I don't have time to do a thesis level literature review, before making a post on an internet message board. And besides, there seem to be a plethora of folks here who are very knowledge on these subjects, for whatever reasons. Not a bad thing.
No one is asking you to make a thesis-level literature review? Your argument just lacked factual support. And it was like pulling teeth getting you to admit that. Let’s start here: what are you basing your claim that “the 13 colonies would have never formed a union with an ‘ideal democracy’” (if I’m summarizing your argument correctly) on? Which documents, events, etc.? No need for documents. It's not any hard than: there would've never been any reason to deviate from ideal democracy, if all the colonies would've agreed to that. Therefore, they didn't, for reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by donut on Oct 8, 2020 12:42:30 GMT -5
Most of the opposition to a popularly voted President (during the Philadelphia Convention) stemmed from concerns over 1) getting information to citizens, 2) the intelligence of the voting base. The “founders” were very elitist.
The Electoral Collage was largely: electors will know things the people won’t and they’ll represent the people.
Initially, most of the delegates wanted the Senate to elect the president, but that was defeated by concerns over separation of powers.
In short, the concerns over “ideal democracy” (which isn’t really the right word) didn’t drive the Electoral Collage decision in the way you think it did, IMO. The Connecticut Compromise, i.e. House/Senate, small state/large state, conversation is a different story.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2020 13:06:54 GMT -5
Most of the opposition to a popularly voted President (during the Philadelphia Convention) stemmed from concerns over 1) getting information to citizens, 2) the intelligence of the voting base. The “founders” were very elitist. The Electoral Collage was largely: electors will know things the people won’t and they’ll represent the people. Initially, most of the delegates wanted the Senate to elect the president, but that was defeated by concerns over separation of powers. In short, the concerns over “ideal democracy” (which isn’t really the right word) didn’t drive the Electoral Collage decision in the way you think it did, IMO. The Connecticut Compromise, i.e. House/Senate, small state/large state, conversation is a different story. Thanks for sharing these thoughts, good points.
I would agree that if the founders and the respective leaders for each colony thought that the average Joe simply wasn't "good enough" or "deserving enough" to even be able to vote, then they wouldn't have cared about a popular vote to decide the president.
But the part you may have missed is that the EC isn't even close to precisely representative, by population. You can see in the post showing EV per 1M population, how much it skews for small states.
|
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Oct 8, 2020 13:09:31 GMT -5
Most of the opposition to a popularly voted President (during the Philadelphia Convention) stemmed from concerns over 1) getting information to citizens, 2) the intelligence of the voting base. The “founders” were very elitist. The Electoral Collage was largely: electors will know things the people won’t and they’ll represent the people. Initially, most of the delegates wanted the Senate to elect the president, but that was defeated by concerns over separation of powers. In short, the concerns over “ideal democracy” (which isn’t really the right word) didn’t drive the Electoral Collage decision in the way you think it did, IMO. The Connecticut Compromise, i.e. House/Senate, small state/large state, conversation is a different story. Even then there wasn't any particular plan other than "let the states decide". In my state it's actually quite specific to each party, where the state legislatures has passed laws for each party that represent their wishes. Democrats select theirs with each House nominee and Senate nominee from the last election nominating an elector. Ostensibly they're pledged to the Democratic candidate for President. Republicans are different in that they have the last nominee for several state offices serve as prospective electors. Then they pad it out with people who are appointed by the state Republican Central Committee. But yeah - originally many states didn't do anything other than appoint people to be electors without any kind of plan. It wasn't meant to make sense. It wasn't even supposed to work very well. |
|
|
|
Post by donut on Oct 8, 2020 13:31:28 GMT -5
Most of the opposition to a popularly voted President (during the Philadelphia Convention) stemmed from concerns over 1) getting information to citizens, 2) the intelligence of the voting base. The “founders” were very elitist. The Electoral Collage was largely: electors will know things the people won’t and they’ll represent the people. Initially, most of the delegates wanted the Senate to elect the president, but that was defeated by concerns over separation of powers. In short, the concerns over “ideal democracy” (which isn’t really the right word) didn’t drive the Electoral Collage decision in the way you think it did, IMO. The Connecticut Compromise, i.e. House/Senate, small state/large state, conversation is a different story. Thanks for sharing these thoughts, good points.
I would agree that if the founders and the respective leaders for each colony thought that the average Joe simply wasn't "good enough" or "deserving enough" to even be able to vote, then they wouldn't have cared about a popular vote to decide the president.
But the part you may have missed is that the EC isn't even close to precisely representative, by population. You can see in the post showing EV per 1M population, how much it skews for small states.
I didn’t miss that, it just isn’t really relevant to our conversation. We were talking about what motivated the founders not to adopt a direct democracy. And these aren’t really my thoughts. This is pretty accepted stuff based on an examination of documents from that time. |
|
|
|
Post by holidayhusker on Oct 8, 2020 13:58:38 GMT -5
Oh my God, the horrible mean orange man consumes our every minute. We can’t sleep, we can’t eat, we can’t even discuss anything anymore because of this horrible man. Save us from the orange man. We just can’t go on. Signed.....The delicate snowflakes
|
|
|
|
Post by donut on Oct 8, 2020 14:04:39 GMT -5
No one is talking about Trump right now.
Take your hysteria elsewhere.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2020 9:11:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 6, 2020 9:17:46 GMT -5
We've already seen Trump with an epic meltdown Thursday. Now what's he going to do today?
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Nov 6, 2020 9:25:17 GMT -5
We've already seen Trump with an epic meltdown Thursday. Now what's he going to do today? Screaming in front of the TV like a raving lunatic. |
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Nov 6, 2020 9:51:13 GMT -5
Most of the opposition to a popularly voted President (during the Philadelphia Convention) stemmed from concerns over 1) getting information to citizens, 2) the intelligence of the voting base. The “founders” were very elitist. The Electoral Collage was largely: electors will know things the people won’t and they’ll represent the people. Initially, most of the delegates wanted the Senate to elect the president, but that was defeated by concerns over separation of powers. In short, the concerns over “ideal democracy” (which isn’t really the right word) didn’t drive the Electoral Collage decision in the way you think it did, IMO. The Connecticut Compromise, i.e. House/Senate, small state/large state, conversation is a different story. Even then there wasn't any particular plan other than "let the states decide". In my state it's actually quite specific to each party, where the state legislatures has passed laws for each party that represent their wishes. Democrats select theirs with each House nominee and Senate nominee from the last election nominating an elector. Ostensibly they're pledged to the Democratic candidate for President. Republicans are different in that they have the last nominee for several state offices serve as prospective electors. Then they pad it out with people who are appointed by the state Republican Central Committee. But yeah - originally many states didn't do anything other than appoint people to be electors without any kind of plan. It wasn't meant to make sense. It wasn't even supposed to work very well. I just revisited this after the thread came back near the top. I’m not sure what California does now with an open primary for Congressional seats. There have been some races with two Democrats and maybe a few with two Republicans. Maybe in that case it’s the winner or the highest performing one in the primary? |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 6, 2020 9:59:42 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure the only rule is that no member of Congress can be an Elector.
(OK, that was pretty close: "No Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.")
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2020 10:06:48 GMT -5
Can the OP please change the title of this thread to "So WHEN Trump refuses to concede..."
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Nov 6, 2020 10:17:36 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure the only rule is that no member of Congress can be an Elector. (OK, that was pretty close: "No Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.") In California, it’s supposed to be the last Democratic nominee for those seats who gets to appoint an elector. So they’re not specifically serving as electors. There’s probably a way to pad out the nominees if there is a problem such as no nominee. For Republicans they start off with the last nominees for statewide office, then the party committee appoints everyone else. |
|
|
|
Post by akbar on Nov 6, 2020 10:27:35 GMT -5
The Biden campaign on the possibility of Trump not conceding: “the United States government is perfectly capable of escorting trespassers out of the White House.”
|
|
