21 Apr 16
Originally posted by whodeyThe electoral college system does do that, the electors do not have to vote for the candidate they pledged for, and there may be no criminal sanction depending on the state.
It is interesting that Hamilton wanted to elect "Electors" to choose the Executive. It appears he also had an aversion to direct democracy.
Originally posted by whodeyMore power to the People in voting is largely a Progressive innovation, one that you hate while you hypocritically complain about "royal families" and "monarchies". The Left has always sought more direct power to the People and the Right has always opposed this.
It is interesting that Hamilton wanted to elect "Electors" to choose the Executive. It appears he also had an aversion to direct democracy.
Of course, the very term "Right" in political thought is derived from the seating of the monarchists in the French National Assembly on the right side of the chamber. Right wingers like yourself are really monarchists at heart.
21 Apr 16
Originally posted by DeepThoughtIn fact, in 8 of the elections since 1948, one Elector has voted differently than the popular vote in his State.http://www.history.com/topics/electoral-college
The electoral college system does do that, the electors do not have to vote for the candidate they pledged for, and there may be no criminal sanction depending on the state.
Originally posted by no1marauderThe issue for me is the increased centralization of power.
More power to the People in voting is largely a Progressive innovation, one that you hate while you hypocritically complain about "royal families" and "monarchies". The Left has always sought more direct power to the People and the Right has always opposed this.
Of course, the very term "Right" in political thought is derived from the seating of the m ...[text shortened]... y on the right side of the chamber. Right wingers like yourself are really monarchists at heart.
Power corrupts.
You can change the parties, change the personalities, paint the walls, but at the end of the day, the system will still be corrupt.
That's why I support the Article V movement to return power back to the states.
What Progs have done is take away state power by taking away their right to choose a Senator and having them directly elected instead. The Founders created two houses SPECIFICALLY so that one house would be chosen by direct election and the other by the states. It is no small wonder why they gave those in the Senate longer terms than in the House. It's because they trusted the states more to pick a Congressman than they did the people directly. However, Progs simply flushed it all down the commode. Now we are stuck with direct elections where voters are steered by the media on how to vote and career politicians with only a 10% approval rating that seem to miraculously win elections every time.
There is no reform within the Federal government. The only hope for change is for states to have an intervention for those in Washington. Either that, or the system will eventually implode due to massive debt.
Originally posted by whodeyYet another attempt to thwart the will of the People and return even more control to the elites. The State legislatures themselves overwhelmingly ratified direct election of Senators; a hundred plus years of experience had shown them that leaving Senatorial selection to legislatures invited A) Corruption (as a few well placed bribes were often sufficient to assure election in these small bodies) and B) Deadlock (States sometimes went years without Senators). Just on efficiency grounds direct election is preferable.
The issue for me is the increased centralization of power.
Power corrupts.
You can change the parties, change the personalities, paint the walls, but at the end of the day, the system will still be corrupt.
That's why I support the Article V movement to return power back to the states.
What Progs have done is take away state power by taking away t ...[text shortened]... r those in Washington. Either that, or the system will eventually implode due to massive debt.
I've never understood and still don't how taking such a decision out of the hands of the People's agents and giving it to the People themselves reduces a State's power. Of course it doesn't but an elitist like yourself doesn't want power in the hands of the People; who knows they might insist on legislation that serves the interests of society rather then just those you want to have dominate.
Right wing intellectual bankruptcy is glaringly apparent when you resort to a proposal to reinstate a power to State legislatures that they gladly and correctly voted to abandon a century ago. The problems of the nation in the 21st Century can hardly be solved by regressing back to policies that were abject failures in the 19th.
22 Apr 16
Originally posted by FishHead111Absolutely.
Democracy is a crappy idea when you think about it, I mean LOOK at what is allowed to vote: (and their vote counts the same as yours...something to think about before bragging up what a great concept democracy is)
And the criteria to vote should be a league above you.
22 Apr 16
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderThe more local your vote, the more power your vote has. This is because there are simply less people voting. For example, my vote is worth more voting for governor than it does the President.
Yet another attempt to thwart the will of the People and return even more control to the elites. The State legislatures themselves overwhelmingly ratified direct election of Senators; a hundred plus years of experience had shown them that leaving Senatorial selection to legislatures invited A) Corruption (as a few well placed bribes were often sufficient ...[text shortened]... ntury can hardly be solved by regressing back to policies that were abject failures in the 19th.
The governor is also more representative of my needs than a distant President. They actually live in the same state that I do and are more familiar with my needs. Since they live in my state, not only do they have to purport to represent the state, they are representing the state they are forced to live in, so they better do a good job.
There is no end to corruption, but as we all know, the more power the more corruption there tends to be. This is my main contention with collectivists. Subverting power is much easier in the Federal government, with hundreds of political positions to target for such corruption. Now multiply those positions times 50 states and the task becomes much more problematic if the power returned to the states.
As it stands now we have a Congress with only a 10% approval rating, but continue to get elected anyway. We also have a President that continues to divide the country. Imagine, if you will, conservative states who are able to pass conservative legislation and liberal states being able to pass liberal legislation as both are able to pursue their own political path. You would have 50 such states free to do as they wish with the added benefit of actually seeing what works best instead of trying to convince people that everything you do and think is correct and is why you alone deserve to call all the shots, which is the never ending task of a collectivist.
22 Apr 16
Originally posted by whodeyThis is gibberish in the context of this discussion; your vote is worth zero if you are not allowed to vote which is what you are proposing as regards election of US Senators.
The more local your vote, the more power your vote has. This is because there are simply less people voting. For example, my vote is worth more voting for governor than it does the President.
The governor is also more representative of my needs than a distant President. They actually live in the same state that I do and are more familiar with my needs. ...[text shortened]... s why you alone deserve to call all the shots, which is the never ending task of a collectivist.
History makes the argument that it is difficult to corrupt local and state officials rather absurd. And despite your constant ranting and raving, most areas of legislation are still left to the States.
22 Apr 16
Originally posted by no1marauderThe real rub is the money flowing into Washington.
This is gibberish in the context of this discussion; your vote is worth zero if you are not allowed to vote which is what you are proposing as regards election of US Senators.
History makes the argument that it is difficult to corrupt local and state officials rather absurd. And despite your constant ranting and raving, most areas of legislation are still left to the States.
Ever since Progs added tine Federal Income tax to the Constitution and then created the Fed, they simply throw their money around to buy everyone, including the states. Now it is to the point that if the states don't do as the Federal government wants, they simply withhold funds.
Some $20 trillion in debt later, was it all worth it?
Another point I forgot to make is, the more participation we have from average citizens in political office, the more representative it is. This is why I favor decentralization of power to the states along with term limits to those in the Federal government.
I find it interesting that those in the House were given smaller terms than those in the Senate. Why do you think that was?
22 Apr 16
1 edit
http://www.usatoday.com/story/onpolitics/2013/01/18/congress-term-limits-gallup-poll/1844855/
Three Fourths of Americans favor term limits. If the country were really a democracy, we would have them.
Instead, Progs will do their level headed best to never put it to a vote and deride anyone like myself who brings it up. The power they hold over the system and society at large should be more than enough to crush their efforts.
22 Apr 16
Originally posted by whodeyIf people cared enough about term limits, you'd have them.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/onpolitics/2013/01/18/congress-term-limits-gallup-poll/1844855/
Three Fourths of Americans favor term limits. If the country were really a democracy, we would have them.
Instead, Progs will do their level headed best to never put it to a vote and deride anyone like myself who brings it up. The power they hold over the system and society at large should be more than enough to crush their efforts.
Originally posted by whodeyThe Framers rejected term limits; were they "Progs"? If you want them, you have to get a Constitutional amendment. It seems that it lacks the popular support that the movement to elect Senators by popular vote had.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/onpolitics/2013/01/18/congress-term-limits-gallup-poll/1844855/
Three Fourths of Americans favor term limits. If the country were really a democracy, we would have them.
Instead, Progs will do their level headed best to never put it to a vote and deride anyone like myself who brings it up. The power they hold over the system and society at large should be more than enough to crush their efforts.
Term limits IMO are just another attempt to take away the People's power to vote into office who they please and thus are fundamentally anti-democratic. IF the People were really that dissatisfied with their representatives, they'd vote them out of office.
22 Apr 16
Originally posted by whodeyMost of the debt has been accrued in the last three decades because of gigantic tax cuts and wars and military spending. "Progs" didn't support those.
The real rub is the money flowing into Washington.
Ever since Progs added tine Federal Income tax to the Constitution and then created the Fed, they simply throw their money around to buy everyone, including the states. Now it is to the point that if the states don't do as the Federal government wants, they simply withhold funds.
Some $20 trillion in d ...[text shortened]... hose in the House were given smaller terms than those in the Senate. Why do you think that was?
Federalist 62 by Madison gives some of the arguments for a Senate and for the specific form it would take in the Constitutional scheme. It's Madison as an advocate; his Virginia Plan would have had a unicameral legislature elected by the People but he supported ratification of the actual Constitution because he saw what a total failure leaving virtually everything to the States (as you essentially propose) had been. In defending long terms for the Senate and no term limits he makes the following points regarding the necessity of stability in government:
The mutability in the public councils arising from a rapid succession of new members, however qualified they may be, points out, in the strongest manner, the necessity of some stable institution in the government. Every new election in the States is found to change one half of the representatives. From this change of men must proceed a change of opinions; and from a change of opinions, a change of measures. But a continual change even of good measures is inconsistent with every rule of prudence and every prospect of success. The remark is verified in private life, and becomes more just, as well as more important, in national transactions.
To trace the mischievous effects of a mutable government would fill a volume. I will hint a few only, each of which will be perceived to be a source of innumerable others.
In the first place, it forfeits the respect and confidence of other nations, and all the advantages connected with national character. An individual who is observed to be inconstant to his plans, or perhaps to carry on his affairs without any plan at all, is marked at once, by all prudent people, as a speedy victim to his own unsteadiness and folly. His more friendly neighbors may pity him, but all will decline to connect their fortunes with his; and not a few will seize the opportunity of making their fortunes out of his. One nation is to another what one individual is to another; with this melancholy distinction perhaps, that the former, with fewer of the benevolent emotions than the latter, are under fewer restraints also from taking undue advantage from the indiscretions of each other. Every nation, consequently, whose affairs betray a want of wisdom and stability, may calculate on every loss which can be sustained from the more systematic policy of their wiser neighbors. But the best instruction on this subject is unhappily conveyed to America by the example of her own situation. She finds that she is held in no respect by her friends; that she is the derision of her enemies; and that she is a prey to every nation which has an interest in speculating on her fluctuating councils and embarrassed affairs.
The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?
Another effect of public instability is the unreasonable advantage it gives to the sagacious, the enterprising, and the moneyed few over the industrious and uniformed mass of the people. Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue, or in any way affecting the value of the different species of property, presents a new harvest to those who watch the change, and can trace its consequences; a harvest, reared not by themselves, but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow-citizens. This is a state of things in which it may be said with some truth that laws are made for the few, not for the many.
In another point of view, great injury results from an unstable government. The want of confidence in the public councils damps every useful undertaking, the success and profit of which may depend on a continuance of existing arrangements. What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes in any new branch of commerce when he knows not but that his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be executed? What farmer or manufacturer will lay himself out for the encouragement given to any particular cultivation or establishment, when he can have no assurance that his preparatory labors and advances will not render him a victim to an inconstant government? In a word, no great improvement or laudable enterprise can go forward which requires the auspices of a steady system of national policy.
But the most deplorable effect of all is that diminution of attachment and reverence which steals into the hearts of the people, towards a political system which betrays so many marks of infirmity, and disappoints so many of their flattering hopes. No government, any more than an individual, will long be respected without being truly respectable; nor be truly respectable, without possessing a certain portion of order and stability.
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa62.htm
These remain good, "conservative" arguments against Federal term limits IMO.
23 Apr 16
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderSo you are a Madison fan, eh?
Most of the debt has been accrued in the last three decades because of gigantic tax cuts and wars and military spending. "Progs" didn't support those.
Federalist 62 by Madison gives some of the arguments for a Senate and for the specific form it would take in the Constitutional scheme. It's Madison as an advocate; his Virginia Plan would have had a un ...[text shortened]... fed/federa62.htm
These remain good, "conservative" arguments against Federal term limits IMO.
Well then, do you care about this quote from Madison regarding the General Welfare Clause?
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America
My guess is no, you don't care.
Do term limits equal instability of government? That is a pretty big leap of logic if you think so, and need I remind you why they imposed term limits on the President? It is because of none other than your favorite President king FDR. He was such a wonderful President they imposed term limits after his death.
And supposing that Madison today would disagree with term limits, need I remind you that he was not the only Founding Father. The reason that the Senate was chosen by the states in the Constitution is that other Founding Fathers would not have ratified the Constitution if they had not been able to because they feared a powerful Federal centralize government that would choke state rights, which it has. This is also why they included Article V in the Constitution which gives states the right to amend the Constitution devoid of Federal government involvement. Is the Federal government too powerful to let this happen? Probably, but as of today a great many states have already voted for it and they only need a few more to get things underway.
There is no question that if term limits are imposed that "good" lawmakers will be kicked out, but unfortunately the "Charley Rangel" types far outweigh the "good" lawmakers. But to suggest that term limits equal an unstable government is absurd.
An example of the need for what I'm talking about is demonstrated by what your own democrat party did in the state of Pennsylvania within it's own party, as well as in Colorado. They attempted to buy off candidates within their own party to go away so that they would not challenge the sitting Congressman. I reckon politicians like Obama preferred dealing with Congressmen whom he knew were his tools rather than be burdened with the task of creating more tools to vote his way. But as with all other scandals in government these days, nothing came of it. Checks and balances within government are a thing of the past.
23 Apr 16
2 edits
I had to laugh when I read this quote from Madison you provided.
"The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?"
Time to change the health care law again before the ink is dry with another " voluminous and incoherent" piece of legislation?
LOL.