Electoral College, VS Popular Vote, OR ?

My Recent Posts

The present system of winner-take-all doesn't fulfill the founders original purpose of protecting minority voters' interests, nor, protect voters from special interests. The present system creates a handicap for less populous rural states. Favors state-based majorities over national majorities. Gerrymandering by each state effects all elections in the favor of state majorities.

 

Popular vote system favors national majorities and cities and also doesn't fulfill the founders original purpose of protecting minority voters' interests. And the original founders method of electing aristocratic representatives also has not fulfill the founders original purpose either.

 

Republicans are presenting the exact same arguments the founders did in choosing the aristocratic representative approach as why not to have popular vote. The argument Plato to Madison to today against democracy elected president are the same. (Plato said that democracy leads to tyranny.)

 

Are any of the three Fair?

Should small states have more power?

Should more rural states have more power?

Should city states have more power?

In states should the cities have more power?

Should rural areas of states have more power then the cities?

Only South Carolina doesn't have a state government elected totally by popular vote. Are the states better run and more fair then the federal government?

 

I come to the conclusion that being fair is impossible because factions, special interest can not be eliminated and money is the megaphone used by factions to gain power. The compromise that created the electoral college to protect the minority in time protects special interest as does the winner-take-all and the direct democratic approach.

 

[Madison was pointing out what those who study the histories of the old Greek, Roman, Middle-eastern, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Northern European, Slavic, and Maritime Republics know. Special interest factions are often the downfall of popular governments and democratic governments whether or not they are representative republics, direct democracies, or even liberal-monarchies.

 

. . . Madison was pointing out that factions within the very Democratically minded Union were destabilizing the Union by acting in their own interest rather in the interest of the common good, as the Union lacked the proper safeguards.

 

. . . By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

 

. . . There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.]

http://factmyth.com/books/james-madisons-federalist-10/

 

Socialism tries the second method of controlling its effects but leaves in reserve the first method. It believes it can create classes of people that are homogeneous, a collective that think practically all the same. Socialism or any society with a government enforced class system eliminates the cause of factions by destroying liberty, unique individuals. Thus within each class every citizen is given the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests, equality of wealth and outcome. But this has time and time again proven impractical.

 

Democrat Socialism doesn't hear, ignores opposition which is what we see in Europe, America, and everywhere Democrat Socialism is practiced to different extents.

 

Socialism or any society with a government enforced class system. All oppositions is suppressed and if necessary put down with force and finally by death. Fascism and Communism, both part of the umbrella of Socialism has reached the final solution, death of the opposition.

 

Should we eliminate winner-takes-all which started in the 1824 election, a wind up to the Civil War. It exaggerates differences but does it create the differences? I do not think so.

 

If the 2016 election for example gave each House of Representative districts one vote and the two remaining votes were to one candidate if they won 2/3 of the popular vote in the state then I think the election would have been tighter. Hillary won the popular vote 51% but only won ~ 5% of the counties but population is not proportional to those boundaries. In Illinois well over half the people live in three counties of a total of 101 counties. The rural states would still had a handicap advantage.

 

Counties are not gerrymandered so if the county boundaries were used and population ignored then Trump would have had an even bigger victory.

 

One thing that is fair is that only citizens vote and with 99% of the voting age citizens have photo ID these can insure the person claiming a name is that person.

 

I come to the conclusion that being totally fair is impossible because factions, special interest can not be eliminated and money is the megaphone used by factions to gain power. The money before the Civil War were that of individuals. Today the money is mostly from foreign countries, corporation or association: can vote, not part of the consent of the governed.    

 

Prior to the growth of government and the turn toward socialism and leviathan government the make up of congress turned over very quickly.  Lincoln served in the House of Representatives less then 6 year which was the norm not like today the exception.   We need to return being a congressman or women a part of civic duty and not a means to increase wealth and/or power of self and/or family.  

Comments