“Mob mentality” and “angry mob” are terms that the uber wealthy use to denigrate ordinary people like us.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

My gosh, I think you're serious. I yield! — tim wood

I’m dead serious. I also have my grandfather’s burial flag, a picture of my grandpa when he was a sailor, and a picture of my nephew in his Marines uniform on my mantle.

“We must welcome the future, remembering that soon it will be the past; and we must respect the past, remembering that it was once all that was humanly possible.”

This is certainly true.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Good theory acknowledges history in so far as knowing the mistakes of the past.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

“Mob mentality” and “angry mob” are terms that the uber wealthy use to denigrate ordinary people like us. — Noah Te Stroete

So why not just get rid of representatives and go with straight democracy using the internet? We vote on everything. Majority rules.

So why not just get rid of representatives and go with straight democracy using the internet? We vote on everything. Majority rules. — Marchesk

I have a personal preference for leadership only because ordinary people don’t have the time to research domestic and foreign policy. Representative government is in a better position to tackle complex issues just because it’s their sole job. However, I do think there should be some national referendums on domestic issues, like marijuana legalization, for example. Also, outlawing gerrymandering that focuses on race and socioeconomic classes. They did this in Michigan.

@StreetlightX used the term “unrepresentative”, whereas I used the term “undemocratic”. “Unrepresentative” is a better term and more in line with what I intended.

“Unrepresentative” is a better term and more in line with what I intended. — Noah Te Stroete

Right, the senators are elected by the people, but the Senate is not representative of the state populations. This is more of an issue today than near the founding of the country because the Federal government has become more powerful and the state governments less so.

Right, the senators are elected by the people, but the Senate is not representative of the state populations. — Marchesk

Exactly. I’m glad we arrived at the same conclusion. The electoral college and gerrymandering practices where politicians pick their voters are also unrepresentative.

This is more of an issue today than near the founding of the country because the Federal government has become more powerful and the state governments less so. — Marchesk

Yes.

The electoral college and gerrymandering practices where politicians pick their voters are also unrepresentative. — Noah Te Stroete

I agree with you on gerrymandering, but I'm on the fence about the Electoral College, because once it's done away with, the candidates will focus much more on the large population areas.

Maybe instead the States could split their electoral votes based on percentages instead of winner take all.

I also think reform to the election process needs to happen. Voter ranked choice would be nice. And money should be removed from elections. The candidates receive the same funding for that particular office.

Maybe instead the States could split their electoral votes based on percentages instead of winner take all. — Marchesk

This makes sense to me. Great idea!

And also maybe a requirement that the President has to win the popular vote in addition to the electoral college. If they win one but not the other, then there's some sort of runoff or it goes to the House for a vote.

I also think reform to the election process needs to happen. Vote ranked choice would be nice. — Marchesk

Yes, this would inevitably lead to more political parties, I think, and so the party heads would be President. Or, the President need not be the head of the party that gets the most votes. I’m not sure which would be better.

And also maybe a requirement that the President has to win the popular vote in addition to the electoral college. If they win one but not the other, then there's some sort of runoff or it goes to the House for a vote. — Marchesk

Now, Marchesk, Noah, and @StreetlightX (if he were American) need to author new Federalist papers. :grin:

I don't trust foreigners, particularly if they're European.

The state governments are redundant because there are already county and municipal governments. — Noah Te Stroete

In Massachusetts, there are effectively no counties anymore. They still exist but have very little to do and very little authority. There is no unincorporated land in Massachusetts. All land is located within the boundaries of the 351 cities and towns. Municipality sizes vary from 700,000 to a less than 100. The State government (actually, Massachusetts is a Commonwealth not a state, whatever that means) is the one unifying governmental force within the Commonwealth. Massachusetts has very different politics, demographics, and way of life than many other states. I don't want the portions of the government which are closest to home to be run from Washington.

My views on state governments being redundant are not strongly held. I could go either way.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

it was intended to be a check on the popular vote. — tim wood

That’s because the southern plantation states had a smaller population than the more urban northern states. The electoral college was a bone thrown to the southern states so they would ratify the Constitution.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

No, I am not daft. The southern plantation states had a lot of slaves which counted as 3/5 of a person each (another bone thrown to the South). Are you ignorant?

Are we playing let's ignore history because we don't like the current party in power? — Marchesk

I made it clear that the Senate is set up to be ludicrously undemocratic, and not reflective of the voting population. Has nothing to do with the fact that Republicans currently control it. You simply don't have a sound argument justifying it's modern day existence, because there is none.

Time for you to start posting your sources. — tim wood

Tim,

I appreciate your input on this thread.

A question for you if you have insight on the topic. The 17th Amendment gave us popular vote for the US Senate. Like the incorporation of the Bill of Rights, via the 14th Amendment, binding states, it appears to me that the 17th reflects an erosion of federalism. Is there any evidence of any countervailing force? Do you see any evidence of a counter to this trend?

You simply don't have a sound argument justifying it's modern day existence, because there is none. — Maw

The argument is that the states exist as a fundamental political unit of organization making up the US. You don't have to like it, but it is a reality. Also, it's not the only part of government which is not representative of the population. The US wasn't setup to be a democracy first and foremost. It is a republic where the representatives get voted in.

The argument is that the states exist as a fundamental political unit of organization making up the US — Marchesk

This isn't even an argument!