Democracy
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
January 17th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
I’m still holding out for one state to apportion votes by the use of a pie eating contest.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
First, let me state that I don’t like the NJ idea.
At the same time, what we have is a double-edged sword here. The Republic was formed with the intention of preventing a majority from imposing their will on the minority. But the nasty side effect of this is that it has in some cases allowed the minority to impose their will on the majority, which isn’t exactly what the original plan had in mind.
And, of course, before the Bush-Cheney team got all Unitary Executive on us, there was only so much a president could do anyway.
But as I see it, irrespective of original intent, the House is supposed to represent the people, the Senate is supposed to represent the states, and the president is supposed to represent both.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Also, for what it’s worth, the whole point of having electors is that they can go against the will of the people or of the state if the circumstances dictate. There is absolutely no requirement — and never has been one — that the electors do what the people, or the state, tell them to. That’s why people/states select electors rather than a candidate, and why there’s a time lag in between the selection of electors, and the electors themselves voting. If not for that ability of the electors to vote differently than requested, there’d be no point in having electors.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
“the people, the Senate is supposed to represent the states”
Too bad the 17th amendment took the states out of the equation.
January 17th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Not really; it just removed a couple of middlemen. Instead of the people of the state electing the governor and legislature, which then appoint/confirm the senators, they directly elect the senators. Given that the people of the state are the state, that’s a difference of procedure, not of representation. Each state still has equal representation in the senate, irrespective of its population, which is as it’s always been. It’s just that the people of the state now determine who should represent their state, rather than their government officials making that decision.
And, of course, but for the 17th Amendment, Tennessee would likely have Democratic senators today, rather than Republicans. I guess you’re right: too bad! 🙂
January 17th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
That is not a given. Unless ‘given’ means ‘it’s bullshit’
January 17th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Also:
That’s what the house was for. The purpose of the senate was to ensure state government was involved in the federal process.
January 18th, 2008 at 12:37 am
Right, ‘cuz we all know that that until big, bad Bush/Cheney, every President rolled over and did whatever Congress said.
January 18th, 2008 at 1:08 am
Without the electoral college we wouldn’t need to have elections because the 10 or 12 largest cities in the United States could just send their city councils to Washington, and would because in those states where a large city holds the majority of voters there would be no delegates other than the big city anointed one of their own.
January 18th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
And that state government is answerable to who, exactly?