Which Candidate Is Better For Your Spouse's/Fiancee's Country?

[mox 298]

Let me make it clear that I don't think we should disregard the Constitution and I'm in agreement that the Federal govt. should do it's job and ONLY it's job. The system established by the Constitution didn't include a lot of the things it includes today. There are several bureaus, departments, services, etc. that I don't recall seeing anywhere in the Constitution. Do you?

Yeah but the sheer brilliance of the Constitution is that the framers made it flexible enough to anticipate a future they couldn't possibly anticipate themselves. Yes, we have all kinds of new bureaucracy, but it all still falls under the 3 branches of government. None of this requires a core change to the Constitution.

Dangling bits and pieces on the framework is easy, and while it may cause problems in terms of bureaucracy, fiscal responsibility, etc, it presents no Constitutional problems. Where we get in trouble is when we start messing with the framework. That's why the founders made it so hard to amend the Constitution.

A good alternative to the EC that still upholds the Republic and addresses the weaknesses of the EC system without introducing its own weaknesses is something I would welcome. But I've yet to hear one that would make me support such a huge change to our Constitution. The popular vote alternative is a leading contender, but only because we have this nostalgic "one man, one vote" idea so ingrained in our heads. But it's more problematic than the EC, and really doesn't bring a lot more to the table other than the feel-good aspect of it.

[slim 1,514]

None of this requires a core change to the Constitution.

Where we get in trouble is when we start messing with the framework. That's why the founders made it so hard to amend the Constitution.

Agreed..... but where do we draw the line with all the "extras?"

The popular vote alternative is a leading contender, but only because we have this nostalgic "one man, one vote" idea so ingrained in our heads. But it's more problematic than the EC, and really doesn't bring a lot more to the table other than the feel-good aspect of it.

Every vote counts, right? Under the EC, every vote doesn't count.

I fail to see why a popular vote would be so problematic. "This candidate got the most votes so he wins" seems fairly simple to me.

[mox 298]

Agreed..... but where do we draw the line with all the "extras?"

Great question! And it's why you should vote.

Every vote counts, right? Under the EC, every vote doesn't count.

I fail to see why a popular vote would be so problematic. "This candidate got the most votes so he wins" seems fairly simple to me.

In a true Democracy, yes. But this is what I've been trying to say: the US is a Representative Democracy. Your vote counts only in your state, not nationally, because the the nation is made up of states, not people. It's why you personally don't get to vote on federal bills. On national issues your state sends representatives. On federal elections (of which there is only one) we also send representatives who happen to be the Electoral College.

Another idea I've heard bandied about is just to let our Congress elect the President, eliminating the Electoral College. The framers actually spent a couple weeks debating this very issue. They knew they wanted a representative election, but they were troubled with the idea of allowing Congress to elect the President. They were worried that the President would kowtow to the Congress, and ignore the will of the people, which would throw the system of checks and balances out of line. They finally settled on a "College" because it goes directly back to the states. The only time the Congress would step in is if there is an Electoral tie, in which case the Speaker of the House casts the deciding vote.

[slim 1,514]

Your vote counts only in your state, not nationally, because the the nation is made up of states, not people.

Now I get it.

But, what I don't like about the current situation is the people living in each state aren't represented the same way they were when the Constitution was written. In those times there were far fewer people per delegate which meant their representative actually represented them not only as someone sent to "vote" for them on federal issues, but someone who was like them and from the same place as they were, not someone who could raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to win a campaign. Sure, the majority of the delegates and reps were rich, but not like today where the basic requirement of getting elected is to raise huge amounts of money to pay for campaign ads.

[mox 298]

But, what I don't like about the current situation is the people living in each state aren't represented the same way they were when the Constitution was written. In those times there were far fewer people per delegate which meant their representative actually represented them not only as someone sent to "vote" for them on federal issues, but someone who was like them and from the same place as they were, not someone who could raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to win a campaign. Sure, the majority of the delegates and reps were rich, but not like today where the basic requirement of getting elected is to raise huge amounts of money to pay for campaign ads.

Ah-ha. Now we are agreed. McCain-Feingold was a heroic first attempt, but it's almost completely irrelevant now because of the zillions of loopholes candidates have found around it. But until we get past this stupid notion that "money = free speech," we will continue to elect the person with the most cash and douche-baggiest lobbyists.

[slim 1,514]

But until we get past this stupid notion that "money = free speech," we will continue to elect the person with the most cash and douche-baggiest lobbyists.

Which really says something about the American people.

[mox 298]

But until we get past this stupid notion that "money = free speech," we will continue to elect the person with the most cash and douche-baggiest lobbyists.

Which really says something about the American people.

It does.