DISQUS Doodlings - About that Electoral College - Granite Grok

DISQUS Doodlings – About that Electoral College

Electoral College

The Left is VERY desirous about doing to the Electoral College what they did to States’ interests when the Progressives passed the 17th Amendment. If there is a puzzled look on your face, let me explain (quickly).

Related: Let’s keep the Electoral College, and eliminate the popular vote for President

What the Founders were wrestling with was “checks and balances” – how to distribute Power all over the place so that no one person or group of people could concentrate it into their hands.

While the House was where the general population had their representation in apportioning power, one of the thorniest issues of the day was how to represent the States’ interests, both large and small, in the upper chamber to act as a check against a burgeoning Federal Government.

The answer was that States’ elected representatives in their own Legislations would choose their Senators to ensure they represented THEIR State’s interest instead of just being a more powerful version of a House Rep.

If the Senators didn’t represent the State’s interests they could be replaced (and often were).

The Progressives ripped that apart when the 17th Amendment made them popularly elected by citizens of that particular State. Removing a critical element of the checks and balances that were so carefully crafted.

We’ve lived with the bad effects of that ever since (e.g., just look at the hundreds of millions of dollars rushing into Georgia for the two remaining Senate races that will decide which party controls the US Senate – you don’t think THAT’S a problem?

I use that as the example and the setup for WHY (again) the Electoral College is under attack (e.g., read the WaPo editorial here as an example in which It’s time to let the majority rule).

The Founders were attempting to prevent Pure Democracy from happening? Why? They learned from history that a Mobocracy (which is what Pure Democracy devolves to when the minority becomes irrelevant).

The Left WANT the Mobocracy and so does, Bernie-Bro, Bruce Currie.

From Ian’s post “Let’s keep the Electoral College, and eliminate the popular vote for President” where he starts off with:

Ahh. And so we find here Underwood demonstrating his distrust and hatred of democracy, the same hate that underpins Neoliberalism and its bastard offspring libertarianism. He might as well have quoted, to Grokster hosannahs all around, what Hayek said: “…my personal preference leans toward a liberal dictatorship rather than toward a democratic government devoid of [classical] liberalism”. –Frederick Hayek

What glorious freedom will flow from less democracy toward the more enlightened views of the cognoscenti! “Freedom” from trade unions, and so the freedom to suppress wages. “Freedom” from regulation, and so the freedom to pollute the air and rivers, poison the workers, charge unfair interest rates, high rents, and create casino investment options. And most of all, “Freedom” from taxes, to prevent the redistribution of wealth from the deserving “makers” to the unwashed “takers.”

Like most on the Left, Bruce is in thrall with twisting words from their normal meanings and inserting words to make his point to make others bad. Misquoting people helps him as well. In doing so here, he hurts his own cause with that “toward the more enlightened views of the cognoscenti!” phrase, never remembering Buckley’s famous phrase of “I’d rather be ruled by the first 100 people in the Boston phone book than by Harvard’s faculty” and for what should be obvious reasons (well, to the rest of us and not those that either are those cognoscenti or straining to attain such like Bruce). While he tries to argue with other commenters, I rate it as a fail and wade into his being piqued that

And so we find here Underwood demonstrating his distrust and hatred of democracy

In the first, Bruce is the stopped clock that right twice a day (“distrust”) and forgot that he was assuming “Pure” in front of his use of “democracy” in which Ian is ALSO correct (as were the Founders). So I waded in to remind Bruce of something he wishes we’d all forget and in which our current educational system, in which he is a “teacher”, is working hard to accomplish (emphasis mine here):

The Founders not only wrote a Constitution that laid out a form of Government but it’s clear you haven’t figured out that it is a masterpiece of sociology as well in that it recognizes that Power tightly held is a threat to us all. They understood that Power must be distributed in as many ways as possible such that it could not be concentrated either by one or a few within Government.

So, by definition, THEY were distrusting of what they had built (knowing that it might not be sufficient). All Americans should have some level of distrust, especially now that it has grown so intrusive (e.g., name one area of Life in which Government hasn’t intruded in one manner or another?).

Hatred? When Government strays out of it’s lane(s), it should rightly be hated because it means that Power IS being concentrated and that Freedom / Liberty is being taken away.

The rest of your screed is rather normal for you: Pffft.

And if you read Ian’s actual post (and know Ian’s outlook in general). But Bruce, once again, either really doesn’t understand how our system works (typical of Berni-Bros – just ask Jan Schmidt) or prefers to keep twisting words:

And yet “power [more] tightly held” is exactly what Underwood is advocating here.

Which is one reason I wade in from time to time to use the CORRECT definitions and not allow folks like Bruce to get away with both word and history malfeasance:

No, he’s advocating for the philosophy of Federalism whereby there is a vertical partition of Powers and Responsibilities. You’re a teacher and should know this – don’t obfuscate. Our Presidential election is based on 50 State elections culminating in the Electoral College votes – each State getting its say and strengthening the notion of a Representative Republic.

States have interests and States have a role within our system (although that has been diminished, notably by the Progressive/Socialists repealing the States’ Legislatures electing US Senators).

Socialists would be happy to have a pure Democracy – how’d that work out for the Greek City/States, eh Bruce? But while it lasts, it would concentrate Power into just the large States. NH would become irrelevant, wouldn’t it Bruce?

In this case, Bruce is advocating NOT just for the elimination of the Electoral College – like most Progressives (as seen by their own actions), they wish to be rid of one of the genius ideas of our Founders: Federalism. The vertical partitioning of Power not only between the Federal Government (as they were rightly afraid that it would become too large and too pushy -and it has) and the “various States” but also horizontal partitioning of Power between those States.

Instead, Progressives almost always (unless stopped dead in their tracks) wish to push Power, money, and decision making up to the next higher level of government and removing it from us in the ability to self-govern. They’d push ALL decision making up to DC if they could even as SOMEONE of their persuasion must realize that not all decisions CAN be made from afar.

Maybe.

And here’s a blatant example of how Bruce puts words into the mouths of people he’s trying to debate by making them look bad – and historical malfeasance as well (some teach he is!):

You and Underwood assume that widespread fraud exists wrt this election–with little real evidence, only wild and unsubstantiated claims that Trump and elements in the GOP have been stoking for some time. Based on this, you want to undo centuries of tradition–the popular election of the nation’s chief executive

I quickly added:

You…assume that widespread fraud exists wrt this election

I haven’t said a thing about that in this thread. Bad try at deflection.

And WHEN have we had a popular (meaning direct election) of the nation’s chief executive, the President – said no previous Prez election EVAH! But that’s how Bruce rolls.

I end this too long of a post with this last word from that thread. Again, emphasis added now by me:

Where we now run into problems, it’s with a situation the Founders never foresaw: the fact that 30% of the population elects 70% of the Senate.

Your history seems to have started the day before your birth. While the absolute numbers are different, they were dealing with the same issue – small States vs large States. THAT’s why the Electoral College was such a genius idea in that every State (again – Federalism in which Power is shared between the Federal Govt and the States (that birthed the Feds). And increasingly larger States still get more votes in the Electoral College than smaller ones.

Bruce concentrates on just the two Senators that add into the Electoral votes – again, a genius idea by the Founders to keep the States on an even keel in the upper chamber while allowing the proportional numeric disparities in the lower chamber. And that’s how the Progressives argue in getting rid of the Electoral College – hoping that we all forget the other half of the Electoral College equation.

Hey Bruce, do you even TEACH that part anymore?  Especially the current day version of the large vs small Colonies / States within a State – even here in small, more rural New Hampshire?

Nowadays, while it is a function of States, we see the misery of rural folks votes against those of the large Urban areas within the States. Except there is no ability to do any “normalization” between the two populations within a State. Why else would there be efforts within certain States to divide said States?

The small States didn’t want to be pushed around by the larger ones. Now, the rural counties are sick and tired of being “outweighed” by the far fewer but more populated urban areas:

  • NYC versus upstate NY
  • Chicago versus almost all the other counties in IL
  • Southern CA versus the more northern parts

Just for three quick examples. Ditto Washington and Oregon as well.  It is sad but this is part of the “Fundamental Transformation” that Obama promised for the US – and with Biden, with the applause from people like Currie, we may end up as merely just another country saddled with the same problems they are. It’s who they are – they love shared misery.

The problem is, those at the top will live like the Central District of the Hunger games – and we’ll be like the Outer Districts.