Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 73
Thanks Tree110Thanks

Thread: Have You Ever Stopped and Thought It All the Way Through?

  1. #61
    Veteran Member bonehead's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    15,296
    Thanks
    5677

    From
    south
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    The electors were not originally to have chosen the electors at all, unless the state legislature provided for it. See U.S. Const. art. II, 1. Even the candidates were not originally chosen by popular vote; the primary did not come along until later.
    and that is precisely what I eluded to in the first place. our current system has been changed quite a bit from the original concept and the original constitution. does it currently conform to the ideas of the original concept? my vote would be no.

  2. #62
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    65,507
    Thanks
    37064

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    The electors were not originally to have chosen the electors at all, unless the state legislature provided for it. See U.S. Const. art. II, 1. Even the candidates were not originally chosen by popular vote; the primary did not come along until later.
    In fact, the whole idea of parties was objectionable to many of our Founders. They came about because of their apparent necessity.

  3. #63
    Veteran Member bajisima's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    46,286
    Thanks
    28303

    From
    New Hampshire
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    In fact, the whole idea of parties was objectionable to many of our Founders. They came about because of their apparent necessity.
    Certain local positions in my state are unicameral. There are no Ds or Rs next to any name and they arent allowed to accept donations from the DNC or RNC. It truly can be wonderful. People are elected because people pay attention and vote based on their ideas not to their parties. However, the down side is that fewer people vote.
    Thanks from KnotaFrayed

  4. #64
    Human Bean KnotaFrayed's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    15,236
    Thanks
    12741

    From
    Here
    Quote Originally Posted by bonehead View Post
    and that is precisely what I eluded to in the first place. our current system has been changed quite a bit from the original concept and the original constitution. does it currently conform to the ideas of the original concept? my vote would be no.
    Then it might beg the question, in the weighing, how often does any person or body of people, modify things to make life more difficult for themselves? Granted, people make mistakes and they take action to correct them, but in recent decades especially, some have strongly intoned that legal changes to our government in the form of Amendments to the Constitution or SCOTUS decisions regarding laws relative to the Constitution and its Amendments, have been mistakes, rather than positive progress.

    To come to a conclusion as to whether subsequent Amendments or law conform to the "original concept", one would have to delve into their interpretation of the "original concept" and to make their case credible, come up with referenced historical evidence to back up their interpretation of the "original concept".

    My very brief (and unsupported without getting more involved in the subject as a whole discussion) view is that the "original concept" still stands and is in evidence in all the collected history of their discussions and debates. It is written in the Preamble, which while it is not cited for determinations of constitutionality, is the entire purpose behind the Constitution or perhaps an "original concept".

    The founders were students of history and they no doubt had a good grasp of how things change over time for a variety of reasons and would have expected that the America of 1776 or at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, would not forever remain, that America, especially with the entire design of the nation they created, one for all humanity, within the limitations of how to balance freedom when they knew that inevitably, some people's freedoms are bound to infringe upon others or at the very least, conflict with one another.

    As far as I can tell, we have progressed a long way and generally in the direction the founders sought and thought the nation they founded to be a progressive form of government for their time. It does not mean further progress is not needed or that constant review is not needed and sometimes revision, it just means that for the most part, many would agree we continue to progress or have a desire to, for all those that want to take America back to some nebulous fantastical time when everything was perfect and there were no negatives that came with the positives.
    Thanks from bonehead

  5. #65
    Human Bean KnotaFrayed's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    15,236
    Thanks
    12741

    From
    Here
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    In fact, the whole idea of parties was objectionable to many of our Founders. They came about because of their apparent necessity.
    One might note the "parties" to which the earliest President's belonged to.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._United_States

    It was not until Lincoln, that a party identifying itself solely as "Republican" came into existence. Prior to that, four early Presidents, including one that penned the Declaration of Independence and another that drafted much of the Constitution, belonged to a party known as the Democratic-Republican Party, perhaps a label that was more appropriate for how this nation's government and its mechanics are defined. I always wonder why some people seem to believe democratic and republican are mutually exclusive, but for thinking of the differences in democratic mechanisms. A pure democracy is different but not absolutely opposed to a republic. A representative republic does not support a pure democracy, but is supported by democratic means. This is to say a pure democracy is a governing body that includes any interested citizen having a vote in every piece of legislation. Logistically that becomes a big problem as the population of a society or nation grows. Even if one has to be a certain age to be eligible to be an "interested citizen", imagine a congress, bicameral or not, comprised of over 2 million people and the logistics of trying to distribute all the material needed for interested parties to make an informed vote, then bring the issue to the floor for a vote. Imagine also the time and the cost for doing so. Thus a representative republican government that still uses democratic means to choose representatives, was chosen, alongside some issues some debated, regarding the wisdom of the greater population of "the people" as opposed to those chosen by the people on the assumption of their good honor and wisdom to represent, the will of the people, in combination of their direct constituents, but of the people of the whole of the nation. In essence they carried as representatives, the wishes of their constituents to be discussed with the wishes of the constituents of other representatives with the goal of how to give all constituents the majority of what they wish for, flushing out potential conflicts and coming up with how to resolve them in a final piece of legislation that will affect all constituents, not just those of one representative. All the way through these processes, and at most all levels, it is a democratic vote that decides just about every outcome, even SCOTUS decisions regarding a question of the Constitutionality of the barring of rights.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democr...publican_Party


    The Electoral College, grants electors to candidates (in a variety or ways, but mostly "winner take all"), but who gets the Electoral College votes, is based on democratic means, although only a plurality victory is needed, not a majority. One must still win a majority of the number of Elector College electors, pledged votes to win the EC and the Presidency. One can win a plurality in the general election and be called a winner there, but as we have just seen demonstrated, still lose the election. The EC electors do not have a vote for their pledged choice, unless that candidate wins another plurality, but on a statewide, not a nationwide, basis. In a way it breaks down a larger whole into smaller portions of representation, in an assumption that logistically something like recounts would be easier to manage and it provides a means to locate where there might be a discrepancy. It also helps sooth potential complaints of not being represented more locally, meaning if the popular vote determines the winner, then state where most of the population is, gets a real or perceived advantage over others. In a way the EC does the same, because larger states have more EC electors, but by breaking it down to the state level, there is a perception, at least, of more individualized and specific representation.

    Sill all processes make use of a democratic vote, although the EC via having to lock in one's vote by pledge, does not allow someone to vote their conscience when the actual vote is due. If they abstain, refuse or would like to vote for the opposite candidate, in some cases they can be in trouble for doing so or replaced by someone who will vote according to the original pledge. While conceptually it might be something we can grasp, whether it actually serves the purpose it may have been intended to serve, is harder to grasp. Rather than winner take all, it might be better to give the candidates the percentages or apportionment of the votes they got in each state and add them up to see whose is highest. As it is if someone loses by a hair, they lose all electors in most states, not just a portion relative to their loss, meaning if someone got 45% of the vote and someone else got 48% of the vote, the "winner" should get 48% of the elector votes and the loser 43% of the elector votes, instead of losing 100% of them, if that makes any sense. I believe in Maine, and possibly Nebraska, some semblance of they is still in place.

  6. #66
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    64,638
    Thanks
    32747

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    In fact, the whole idea of parties was objectionable to many of our Founders. They came about because of their apparent necessity.
    Yes, many found them objectionable. But I believe they came about less out of necessity (if at all), but rather inevitability. Madison wrote about factions* in Federalist #10, and how a large part of the reasoning behind the Constitution's structure was to deal with factions by pitting ambition against ambition, to mitigate as much as possible the effects of factions.

    * I consider today's "factions" to be both political parties as well as interest groups - or, if you prefer, "special interests," as opposed to the political parties that represent "general interests."
    Thanks from Wonderer

  7. #67
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    64,638
    Thanks
    32747

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by bajisima View Post
    Certain local positions in my state are unicameral. There are no Ds or Rs next to any name and they arent allowed to accept donations from the DNC or RNC.
    I think you mean to say "nonpartisan"? "Unicameral merely refers to a single-house legislature, as opposed a bicameral one (i.e., with two houses). Currently, between the states and the federal government, only Nebraska has a single-house legislature.
    Thanks from Wonderer and bajisima

  8. #68
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    65,507
    Thanks
    37064

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    Yes, many found them objectionable. But I believe they came about less out of necessity (if at all), but rather inevitability.
    I'm not sure what is the difference. Why are they inevitable? Because people find that forming them is a necessity in order to follow their own self-interests, and no one can prevent people from following their self-interests.

  9. #69
    Veteran Member bonehead's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    15,296
    Thanks
    5677

    From
    south
    Quote Originally Posted by KnotaFrayed View Post
    Then it might beg the question, in the weighing, how often does any person or body of people, modify things to make life more difficult for themselves? Granted, people make mistakes and they take action to correct them, but in recent decades especially, some have strongly intoned that legal changes to our government in the form of Amendments to the Constitution or SCOTUS decisions regarding laws relative to the Constitution and its Amendments, have been mistakes, rather than positive progress.

    To come to a conclusion as to whether subsequent Amendments or law conform to the "original concept", one would have to delve into their interpretation of the "original concept" and to make their case credible, come up with referenced historical evidence to back up their interpretation of the "original concept".

    My very brief (and unsupported without getting more involved in the subject as a whole discussion) view is that the "original concept" still stands and is in evidence in all the collected history of their discussions and debates. It is written in the Preamble, which while it is not cited for determinations of constitutionality, is the entire purpose behind the Constitution or perhaps an "original concept".

    The founders were students of history and they no doubt had a good grasp of how things change over time for a variety of reasons and would have expected that the America of 1776 or at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, would not forever remain, that America, especially with the entire design of the nation they created, one for all humanity, within the limitations of how to balance freedom when they knew that inevitably, some people's freedoms are bound to infringe upon others or at the very least, conflict with one another.

    As far as I can tell, we have progressed a long way and generally in the direction the founders sought and thought the nation they founded to be a progressive form of government for their time. It does not mean further progress is not needed or that constant review is not needed and sometimes revision, it just means that for the most part, many would agree we continue to progress or have a desire to, for all those that want to take America back to some nebulous fantastical time when everything was perfect and there were no negatives that came with the positives.
    and I don't disagree with that. we have, in my opinion, reached a plateau which we must go over. for this to happen, the citizens (both individually and collectively) must understand it and want it. do we want it enough - that is the question.

  10. #70
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    64,638
    Thanks
    32747

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    I'm not sure what is the difference. Why are they inevitable? Because people find that forming them is a necessity in order to follow their own self-interests, and no one can prevent people from following their self-interests.
    Ok. I was thinking in terms of whether society needed political parties, as opposed to (as you represent above) individuals needing them.

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. They Are Saying The Leak Is Stopped
    By Blueneck in forum Current Events
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 16th July 2010, 06:44 PM
  2. This should be stopped!
    By Pragmatist in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 13th August 2009, 10:53 AM
  3. OPPS sorry Should have stopped here first!
    By BeMyOwnBoss in forum New Users
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 25th September 2006, 05:21 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed