Joe Voter needs handlers

[dystopiamembrane]

As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”

factcheck.org article

[ironman1315]

That electoral college is better than the present electoral college.

[dystopiamembrane]

Do you feel this way due to the fact that Hamilton’s electoral college delegates were expected to vote the way they thought best, rather than simply echo the choice of the voters who elected them?

[ironman1315]

Yep. If we had a strong system like that I doubt we’d have had Trump. 

[dystopiamembrane]

Would we have a stronger or weaker plutocracy?

[UteThunder]

Actually, given the fact that the alternative was Hillary, I would say the Electoral College acted very much in line with Hamilton’s description.

[dystopiamembrane]

You speak the truth, sir.

[AlohaUte]

I agree it’s better overall, but I’m really torn. On the one hand we would have such better leadership and be in a better position if we used the electoral college as it was designed. I.e. we choose/vote for electors and they then vote for President. One of the major problems with democracy is that most people are too ignorant to make good choices. It is astounding that we choose Presidents based on their gravitas and ability to sell you what they are selling in campaigning over some highly qualified multi term governor who may be boring and not the greatest communicator, but very able to get things done. Our democracy has been hijacked, not by Russia, but by social media and the lowest common denominator.

On the other hand the inherent problem with the above is that you take away the voice of the voiceless and the weakest / more destitute among us. It is harder for minorities to have voice etc.

So it comes down to do we value everyone having a say over good leadership or vice versa.

[dystopiamembrane]

Agreed on all points. Makes one wonder whether we need to rage quit, have a beer, walk the dog, and start the game again.

[ironman1315]

The president should have had far more limited powers. Now the office is essentially a third house of Congress what with its rule making authority. 

[Stone]

I agree. Technically, the president does have more limited powers…but that limitations has not been kept in check over the last couple decades. Congresses’ inaction has resulted in presidents making numerous “executive actions” that are procedurally improper. The system was never intended for presidents to have the authority that they have exercised in recent history.

[Utah]

…

[bopahull]

Another reason for the electoral college was to ensure that the less populace states would be able to have a say in elections. It was feared that the large population density cities would be able to elect their candadate with a simple popular vote which  would leave rural areas without any power. A good example is Hillary winning the popular vote because she carried most of the large population density  states but Trump carried most of the more rural states so he won the electoral vote.

[UteBacker]

Electoral Map

[Utah]

When does the narrative shift to “the small states have too much say”? Originally, the House of Reps had each rep cover 200,000 people, now they cover 750,000. 

The money is made in the populous states and the economy is driven by those states. So why are we pandering to smaller states that don’t add a lot of economic value (and most of their economic value, farming, is HEAVILY subsidized)? 

The system was set up with the Senate to protect the smaller states and the House to protect the larger states but we have devolved into a scenario where both the Senate and the House protect smaller states and the electoral college also protects smaller states…

At some point, the states that fund this whole operation through their tax input to the country and their economic prowess, namely California, Mass, NY, WA, etc should have a voice more proportional to their input into the system. 

[Utah]

Time wrote an interesting article about this. 930 seats, according to them, solves a lot of problems. It fixes gerrymandering, it diversifies the House, instead of just lawyers and businessmes. It would open up the primaries for more people to run and have a shot to win, so you get more “people like me” to vote for, which would diversify the House and make it a more true representative of the US. 

https://time.com/5423623/house-representatives-number-seats/

If the Senate protected the small states and the House protected the big ones, we’d have to go back to discourse and compromise, and that is when we do our best work. 

Then, how do you fix the electoral college? Well, wait and see. With gerrymandering fixed, the problem might just fix itself. 

[Central Coast Ute]

You conviently left Texas, Florida, Georgia and Alaska out. Also, what are you going to do without food? Next, those states you listed, send a disproportionate amount of their citizens to the military. Without farms and military, California and New York can’t survive. Texas and Georgia contributes a high amount of money, troops and food, maybe we should let them make all of our decisions, (Eyeroll).
We need each other to build something great. If you squash the minority, you’ll find they won’t help you and your left fending for yourself. California cannot survive as it is on it’s own. Even Texas would struggle, although it would be much easier for it to do than any of those states you listed. In fact, my money would be on Texas making it on it’s own than all four of those you listed. Without food, energy and military, silicon valley will shut down within a month. Without Silicon valley, our lives become harder. Get the point?

highest and lowest enlistment rates per capita.

[Utah]

We need each other. So, the Senate protects the small states. The House protects the big. EXCEPT that the House has been neutered so the small states are overprotected. The House does not reflect the population like it was meant to and it has been gerrymandered to hell. 

I haven’t (not has anyone I’ve seen) said they want to get rid of the Senate or take away those protections. What we have done is swung too far to protecting the small states.

Oh, and Texas has tried to leave a couple of times and came crawling back both times. California has the 5th largest GDP in the world. They’d have to secure water rights, but most of our crops come from California (1/3 of our vegetables, 2/3rds of our fruits and nuts), most of our money comes from California. As much as the right likes to bash on California, this country does not work without California and they’d have a much better chance of success than the the other 49 would if they broke off. And they’d take with them Oregon and Washington…They’d be fine. The rest of us? We would struggle HARD. Tax revenues would drop massively, our food supply would be cut off, etc. Anyone that likes to rip on California…it’s laughable. They are misinformed to reality. 

I do agree, we need each other. And what we don’t need is one group having too much say. The House of Reps needs to grow to reflect our current situation. Add seats to the House and a lot of issues go away, including the ability for a reality tv star who has no real ability to do anything of value to become president. 

[Central Coast Ute]

I live in California and that is absolutely not true. If they left, they’d have a very small military and few citizens willing to fight. Taxes would have to go up even higher to support their social programs and even more money would flee the new country, leaving nothing here. We refuse to build more reservoirs so we won’t have any water and with no military, you can’t fight for land to take it with either. Most of the state would stay with the US, leaving largely the coastal areas to fend for themselves, which means the central California valley isn’t there for them to farm, even if they did have water. Also, without energy they’ll fall apart. Their cities will fill up with more homeless and people in general will have less to give because the government requires all of it. If you read my statement, I didn’t say Texas could do it on it’s own, only it would have a better chance, and it does. It has the 10th largest economy in the world. What it lacks in money compared to California it makes up with Texans. Take a look at a college football team. Texans work harder, are more selfless, are less entitled and more likely to get the job done. This is also true with soldiers and Marines.
The large states already have an advantage. It’s very rare for a president to win without the popular vote. The way it’s set up now, is that a president can’t forget about them, like you seem to want to do.

[Central Coast Ute]

And this way you can’t ignore the center of the country. It’s a much better system than majority rules all.

[Utah]

We can’t be fair to all people at all time. What’s more important? To give special treatment to the center of the country, who doesn’t add as much economically and tax wise than the coasts? Why do we hurt the coasts to help the center? Especially when the center gets all the “socialism” in the form of farming aid? Wouldn’t that money be better spent building up the economic powerhouses we already have and maximizing their successes? Remember, that without the “blue” states, we don’t have the money to survive. The reason there is an economy in the south and center is because we tax the blue states and redistribute it to the middle and south. Without California and NY, the center and south become desolute. 

And what has the center given the country? Trump, who has been a disaster economically? When do you admit you were wrong and work towards getting better? Or do we just “have to win” no matter what, even it means destorying the economic success of this country, so we can “own the libs”? 

[Central Coast Ute]

Read my above answer. The center of the country donates more in the form of blood and sweat than the others do, so yes they are more important, hands down and it’s not close. California may donate a lot in taxes but we also take a lot. And with our population, more of our young people should be enlisting.

[Utah]

Blood and sweat? Come on now. So people in other states don’t contribute blood and sweat? Give me a break. 

California gives a lot more in tax revenue than they take, so no, they don’t “give a lot but take a lot”. They give. Full stop. They lose money/resources being a part of the US. What do they “take” exactly? 

This is what drives me nuts about a segment of the population…they have these cute words, but they are hollow. What does California take? Answer me that (but I don’t expect you will, you will try to shift the conversation somewhere else). 

Enlisting? Are you kidding? sheesh. PUT THEM IN SCHOOL. Again, we should invest in our best resources (which are states that actually contribute to this country and aren’t a net drain) and includes our youth, with education instead of enlisting. 

That’s a better bang for our buck than enlisting. Sheesh. This isn’t the 1930’s where the best jobs are manufacturing. Those days are gone. There has to be a fundamental change in how we attack problems and spending resources on “blood and sweat” and giving too big a voice to areas that are net drains…that ain’t it. 

[Central Coast Ute]

So you’re dismissing the military, wanting to flood the system with college degrees? This makes no sense and cannot work. Yes we people to enlist in the military. Without it you dont have a country. I know you hate that but it’s true.

Yes California gives more than anyone else but they take more than anyone else. So it seems like we are “investing” in it. Right?

You can’t be serious. No military?

if we did it your way I guarantee you would be one of the first to die. I’d like to see you try to survive with no national defense.

[UtMtBiker]

“blood and sweat”… what a great donation. We would need a lot less young people to enlist if we stopped sticking our nose where it doesn’t belong and worked on building relationships instead of destroying them.

[Utebeam]

Whaaaat, so you’re saying that not all people are equal and we should invest in the ones that will add more to the economy? Do you get to keep your Blue card for that? So I guess you’re against BLM and the minorities that “don’t contribute as much” so we should ignore them?

Most of the Democrat’s policy pillars are on those that don’t contribute as much aka minorities. Now they don’t really care about them, but they need their vote. I mean we had eight years of an African American president but according to the left racism is at an all time high and everyone who is white is a racist. How did Obama waste eight years and not advance AA interests and reduce racism? My guess is he did but that narrative doesn’t play in order to get the minority vote to get the bad orange man out of office. 

[UtMtBiker]

Which is a terrible reason.

[PrudentUte]

We have had some weak, uninspired Presidents throughout our history but the constitution was designed to reserve most of the power over our daily lives to individuals, our communities and our state. A huge change in direction started with the Roosevelt administration in response to the depression and WWII. Lyndon Johnson expanded the presidential powers even more as has every President since, including this one.
Social media drives the national conversation and the electorate responds to who can generate the most effective publicity. So we are left with Presidents like Obama and Trump – both highly underqualified – but effective media manipulators and a federal government with far, far too much power.
It’s no surprise that the average citizen has so little influence and local and state governments are just administrative branches of the federal government. When the country was founded it didn’t matter so much who was the President but now the President has become the King we fought a revolution to rid ourselves of years ago.

[AlohaUte]

Presidents like Obama and Trump – both highly underqualified – but effective media manipulators

I’m glad I’m not the only one that sees this. Obama was arguably the least qualified President ever. He wasn’t a terrible President, he was average I guess, but he had no business being elected President. Also, I agree that Trump too was wholly unqualified for the position. All that said, on paper Biden is immensely qualified, but he is destined to continue our run of mediocrity. And I wish people would be willing to have a real conversation about his mental state.

[UtMtBiker]

You only have 2 pins at this point. Uts not Bindens mental health issues we should be concerned about.

[Charlie]

The problem with candidates for federal government is we are limited to the few that have incredible desire for these positions. It is desire not qualifications. Very few can do anything more than talk a line and make a promise but we hope they can see a solution for our most difficult issues. No one works their way up with success with similar or simpler issues like so many other disciplines. There are literally millions of men and women better qualified than our best in the WH, Senate, and House, they simply chose to do something else. We need to ‘draft’ them away from their current activities in a way that they feel honored to serve. This coupled with term limits where they quickly return out of government would help.

California can’t possibly help themselves by going their own way. County by county or district by district, there are plenty of republican areas. A couple of large cities make the state blue, if each square mile had a vote it becomes a different story. Would all of rural California love to be told what is what by the folks in the city? What makes us so great is the differences we include that for the most part have worked together. It is odd that as we are arguably the best, we look down the line at others with so much less success for a model to copy, even models so many have gave up on. I think we continue to listen to promises of getting something without working for it, that gets mixed in with other good ideas to make improvements and we can’t tell the difference.

We need to start the draft up again. We need to draft our leaders out of our population, the best people who don’t campaign, just work until asked and honored to come serve. Same with the military, draft everyone, men and women with few exceptions (remember, 2/3 of the military is not combat arms and very much like any civilian job). Why do we want leaders that get in those positions by massing promises that may or may not be realistic? Last, Biden being qualified has not become real simply by being a politician for 40+ years.

[Author]

Posts