Views on the US Constitution

[bhsup]

(And I bet you wouldn't support it if the liberal states outnumbered the conservative ones.)

For what it's worth, I assure you I would. I realize that's rather hard to prove, but you'll just have to take my word for it. Or not...your choice.

 

[aussieboy]

One state, one vote is the most disgusting travesty of democracy I have ever heard.

Not necessarily.

 

[Brian_B]

Bah, the electoral college is fun! I like election night when they color in the states!

 

[cgannon64]

Presidential structure totally kicks European coalitions' ass.

 

[Cuivienen]

Not necessarily.

In hyperbole, of course. Clearly things like Kim Jong-il winning 100% of the vote are greater travesties. (Then again, no one really pretends that that's democracy.)

 

[malclave]

And for the Electoral College, I love it, every four years it makes for REALLY entertaining news/drama. Every news man has like 5 charts showing what so and so needs to win. Now if there wasn't an electoral college, presidents wouldn't be trying to woe states, they would just try to win cities. What would seem to lead to New York, Chicago, and LA picking who our next POTUS would be.

I like the Electoral College in that it means states can't just be totally ignored.

I would like the states that use the "winner take all" system of deciding electors (which is most of them) to start using a more proportional method of distributing votes.

Maybe purely by percentage (so, for example, in 2004, California would have sent 30 electors for Kerry and 25 for Bush, while Texas would have sent 13 for Kerry and 21 for Bush).

Maybe, for those states with more than three electors, each Congressional district could be "winner take all" for one elector; the remaining two electors could be decided by the state's overall vote total (as most states select ALL their electors currently).

I doubt either the Democratic or Republican Party would like either of these proposals... but ultimately the method of selection is up to the individual states, and not the federal government.

 

[The Yankee]

Maybe, for those states with more than three electors, each Congressional district could be "winner take all" for one elector; the remaining two electors could be decided by the state's overall vote total (as most states select ALL their electors currently).

Maine currently has that setup of dividing electoral votes. And I don't remember if Colorado passed the bill that would let it divide its votes as close to the percentage as possible.

Although I wonder if those on the College are bound to vote the way the state does. I do remember that they were not perfectly bound to that but generally would vote however the state's voters had done.

I'm not a great fan of the Electoral College. All the campaigning gets done in the "battleground" states while states like New York or Texas are ignored, even if the runner-up gets 40% of the vote in those states. Part of the entire sadness I see over the decreasing (and I think unfairly so) influence of New York, especially that of this city.

 

[malclave]

Although I wonder if those on the College are bound to vote the way the state does. I do remember that they were not perfectly bound to that but generally would vote however the state's voters had done.

Some states legally require electors to vote for who they agreed to vote for, while others don't. (I wish I could find the page on Google that lists states with these laws, as well as the ones who don't use winner-take-all)

I'm not a great fan of the Electoral College. All the campaigning gets done in the "battleground" states while states like New York or Texas are ignored, even if the runner-up gets 40% of the vote in those states. Part of the entire sadness I see over the decreasing (and I think unfairly so) influence of New York, especially that of this city.

I know what you mean, being in California.

I think currently, barring any special circumstances (like a candidate from the state running), New York and California are sewn up for the Democrats, while Texas is a lock for the Republicans. The candidates just need to spend enough time and money to make sure the voters in those states don't feel neglected. That's why I would prefer states to use some type of proportional selection of electors.

 

[IglooDame]

Some states legally require electors to vote for who they agreed to vote for, while others don't. (I wish I could find the page on Google that lists states with these laws, as well as the ones who don't use winner-take-all)

I don't know about the page, but Maine and Nebraska are the two proportional-elector states.

 

[Commy]

I think US constitution is very old. For example, there is too small number of sections about human rights. But US Constitution is 1st written Constitution (Magna Carta isn't it), and it played a great role in world history.

 

[Caprice]

The Constitution has done well, and our government has as a result as well. We are a prosperous nation for a reason. The Electoral College does exactly what it was intended to do, emphasize the voters in smaller states (I wrote an article on my website about this in February, if anyone is interested in reading it). I also think that indirect representation is an important factor of what makes us a Republic rather than a "mob-rule" democracy. The Constitution was, and is, a good foundation for government.

As far as criticisms go, I think that the 17th amendment should be repealed (the way things are now, the State governments have no representation at all) and the amendment doing so should establish term limits for the representatives and senators (the idea of a career politician is absurd and breeds corruption, or so I believe). I'd also support limiting the president to a single term, perhaps five years in length instead of 4, so that he (or she) can govern rather than worry about re-election.

I also agree with statements made about the government not functioning within it's Constitutional limits. There are boat-loads of things our federal government does that it probably couldn't if the Constitution was followed perfectly. Many of these are things that a great many Americans EXPECT their government to do for them...

I would also love to see the "forced" two-party system disappear... but, yeah, right.

But US Constitution is 1st written Constitution (Magna Carta isn't it), and it played a great role in world history.

Do a google search for "Articles of Confederation."

 

[blackheart]

I'm not a great fan of the Electoral College. All the campaigning gets done in the "battleground" states while states like New York or Texas are ignored, even if the runner-up gets 40% of the vote in those states. Part of the entire sadness I see over the decreasing (and I think unfairly so) influence of New York, especially that of this city.

NY and NYC are big, but they shouldn't be so important that they overshadow everyone else.

 

[YNCS]

Not really, since those cities combined have less than a tenth of the US population. IIRC more than half of the population lives outside of major urban areas entirely. And why should major population centers be ignored and unpopulous states like New Mexico, Iowa and New Hampshire be the ones deciding the Presidency?

More importantly, people in Wyoming are represented 3.6 times more than people in California in the Electoral College. That doesn't sound like "One man, one vote" to me.

Wyoming: 170,000 people per Electoral vote (510,000 people/3 votes)
California: 615,820 people per Electoral vote (33,870,000 people/55 votes)

That is horribly unfair and horribly undemocratic.

At the 1789 constitutional convention in Philadelphia, there was a major debate between the more populous states and the less populous states about whether to give representation on the basis of population (which favored the first group) or an equal number to each (which favored the second group). So they compromised, with one house apportioned one way and the other house the other way.

 

[Caprice]

More importantly, people in Wyoming are represented 3.6 times more than people in California in the Electoral College. That doesn't sound like "One man, one vote" to me.

I'm darn glad it isn't "one man, one vote." Mob rule... mob rule...

 

[tomsnowman123]

I'm darn glad it isn't "one man, one vote." Mob rule... mob rule...

Well who's to say that Wyoming votes should be more than say, California? One man, one vote sounds fine to me.

 

[Caprice]

Well who's to say that Wyoming votes should be more than say, California? One man, one vote sounds fine to me.

The Constitution is to say because the people of California might have vastly different goals for the nation than those of the state of Wyoming (or other, much smaller states). The Electoral College is a good faith effort to equalize the differing interests of urban folk and rural folk.

 

[tomsnowman123]

The Constitution is to say because the people of California might have vastly different goals for the nation than those of the state of Wyoming (or other, much smaller states). The Electoral College is a good faith effort to equalize the differing interests of urban folk and rural folk.

But it's giving an unfair advantage to people who have no more right to it then others. More people live in the suburbs, so you would think they would have a stronger voice.

 

[Caprice]

But it's giving an unfair advantage to people who have no more right to it then others. More people live in the suburbs, so you would think they would have a stronger voice.

"Unfair" perhaps, but still sencible when the goal is to prevent the "mobs" in the urban areas from overrunning the rural population.

 

[The Yankee]

NY and NYC are big, but they shouldn't be so important that they overshadow everyone else.

It couldn't, nor should it, overshadow everyone else. California, Texas, and Florida would do a combo attack on us so fast...

But I believe it's not as equitable as it should be. Especially given the power Iowa has with its caucus. It made John Kerry, for instance. Plus it was a swing state. Whereas New York was mostly just a place for fundraisers early on.

And on second thought, deciding electoral votes by who wins congressional districts will be an extremely bad idea and I wish I noticed it earlier. It would mean the presidency will be the result of gerrymandering computer programs every ten years (or whenever they feel like it in Texas).

 

[malclave]

And on second thought, deciding electoral votes by who wins congressional districts will be an extremely bad idea and I wish I noticed it earlier. It would mean the presidency will be the result of gerrymandering computer programs every ten years (or whenever they feel like it in Texas).

Good point... though gerrymandering is another sore spot with me... the California 23rd (http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/images/preview/congdist/ca23_109.gif) is a prime example. That was one of the Governator's initiatives which I wish had passed.

As far as the anti-DeLay dig, my understanding is that the Texas Constitution specifically calls for the state Legislature, not the courts, to redistrict following a national census. This was not done. As far as I'm aware, the 2003 redistricting plan has been the only one in Texas this decade, despite the "whenever they feel like it in Texas" comment. As I recall, the courts in 2001 just largely continued the Democrats' gerrymandering, to the extent that rather than actually vote, many Democrats in the state Legislature fled the state to prevent a quorum.