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

I happen to have a print of “Washington Crossing the Delaware” in my living room. — Noah Te Stroete

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

Zinn's People's History... is a good and instructive book. But just tell me this: you are aware the senate was created as a compromise to bring together the larger and the smaller states into agreement so that the constitution could be signed, yes? That the senate was itself conceived as and conceded to be a bulwark against a kind of tyranny - a protection then, of democratic principles.

If you've got that, then rant away; it's your right. Mr. Santayana had an observation about history (which I very much doubt he was first thinker of). I am confident you know it.

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.

I’m dead serious. — Noah Te Stroete

I prefer to think of you as deadly serious. There are quite enough dead serious people, and we'll both join them soon enough, I myself am not in a hurry....

Above you said this thread is about theory and not history. A good point, and I regret injecting history beyond need. In my defense I'll say now what might have been said above, were I smart enough to have seen the need, that good theory acknowledges history. Do you and yours? You claim it but evidence to the moment is against.

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

I was thinking of this one:
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
But I suspect you knew that perfectly well.

“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.

It's not at all clear you understand the origins of the electoral college, what it's for, how it's supposed to work, what it's supposed to do. Had it done its job, arguably Trump would not be president. It was never intended to be a rubber stamp for the popular vote. Instead, it was intended to be a check on the popular vote.

Btw. I cannot find any text which says that the president and vice-president shall be elected by the people. Members of the House of Representatives, yes. Senators, 17th amendment "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years;..." President and vice-President, no.

I should very much appreciate being directed to that text. I am pretty sure that the reality of the presidential elections is that we vote for electors.

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.

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. — Noah Te Stroete

In 1790? Are you daft? The southern states of Rhode Island, Delaware, New Hampshire, even Maryland. Those Southern states? And, per our friend the web, as late as 1780 all the states were slave states. By 1789, there were eight slave and five free states. Penna. first in 1780, and in 1789, NY was apparently still slave.

Time for you to start posting your sources.

1790 Census
State population Total
Vermont 85,539 Vermont not a state
New Hampshire 141,885
Maine 96,540
Massachusetts 378,787
Rhode Island 68,825
Connecticut 237,946
New York 340,120
New Jersey 184,139
Pennsylvania 434,373
Delaware 59,094
Maryland 319,728
Virginia 747,610
Kentucky 73,677
North Carolina 393,751
South Carolina 249,073
Georgia 82,548

In order of population:

South 1) VA-KY (KY part of VA) 821k
North 2) MA-ME (same as VA-KY) 475k
North 3) PA 434k
South 4) NC 394k
North 5) NY 340k
South 6) MD 320k
North 7) CT 238k
South 8) SC 249k
North 9) NJ 184k
North 10) NH 142k
South 11) GA 83k
North 12) RI 69k
North 13) DE 59k

At that time, Delaware and New Jersey were not clearly Northern states. And Virginia, NC, and Georgia were relatively huge.

Total pop. North 1,941,000
South 1,867,000

-------

So who have you been listening to?

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!