"... and a progressive cabal who would like to totally dismantle the electoral college, which was the shim to keep us from electing demagogues, because the electoral college has elected demagogues to the office..."
If I have code in a software that is not working (or working to sabotage other code), I either fix it or remove it. I used to be a big fan of the electoral college, but it failed us catastrophically this past presidential election.
"However, if the Supreme Court, or the Senate, or the electoral college, or the states, allow our political groups and leaders to dismantle any element of our system, the entire system could fail, and fail spectacularly."
John Roberts' immunity ruling was a big step towards failure as he surrendered the Court's role in holding the Executive accountable for actions that enriched the President and effectively neutered Congress's ability to constrain the chief executive. (What force have any laws when those that break them on behalf of the President may be pardoned[1]?)
I fear that the critical mass of voters needed to elect "better" leaders doesn't exist anymore and we're scheduled for bread and circuses until the tent collapses around our ears.
It is the best structure for avoiding demagoguery IF the parties function in their roles. Don’t say the electoral college failed spectacularly when you mean the parties failed.
The problem is that parties are entities that sit outside our Constitutional order, and the Electoral College - as currently designed - is blind to their existence. They're an emergent phenomenon that arise out of a foundation that says nothing about them. An Electoral College designed with Parties as entities to be considered (as States are) would look a good deal different, I suspect.
I will agree that the Republican Party failed in its emergent role to produce an acceptable option, and we're now living through the consequences of that failure.
If we had enough political parties to satisfy everyone, the Constitution and federal laws would change every two or three election cycles. Are there no longer any enduring truths?
Federal law changes when there's enough votes to change it - and often every few years. The Constitution is different and requires ratification by the states, so no - that's just hyperbole.
We actually have plenty of parties, the issue is that first past the post ultimately leads to a two-party system - 'cause it doesn't lead to proportional representation.
It does give people in smaller states a disproportionate amount of power per capita in choosing the President. A Wyoming voter's choice for President counts a couple times more (380%, I've seen bandied around) than someone in California.
Something like that (~125k per EC for WY, ~700k for CA, and that is it's own good reason to eliminate it), but realistically it bears no difference on who is focused on during an election - the states closest to a 50/50 split.
That's more a function of the winner-takes-all nature of the College than the voter-per-delegate imbalance.
I'd be curious to know which of the two smaller states would be more willing to give up. I can see that argument going either way. It would be interesting to see to what extent Democrats would spend effort on winning a fraction of the state's delegation in the Dakotas, and the GOP in New England.
And that's a good thing. Do we want more Californias? The electoral college helped the USA become a nation. We can't renege on Constitutional promises.
The promise is states' rights. And if there are enough popular votes for states to ratify changes. so be it. But "it" will no longer be America as founded. We might as well adopt a European parliamentary system.
I can spew vitriol about our felonious President with the best of them, but believe that he's doing a much better job - while alive - discrediting the mythology and ideology that surrounds him, than martyring him would do. The longer he stays alive and is revealed as the grifting conman that he is, the better it is for the nation.
As he proved in Iran, it does no one any good for an outside party to short-circuit a inevitable succession crisis other than the person who is elevated quickly in his stead (which would be the Midwest's favorite failson, J.D. Vance).
Also, FWIW, the phrase "Second Amendment Solution" (and idea behind it) didn't arise out of the Leftist Swamps.
1) No, a ballroom at the White House would not have mattered because this is not an official state event and it would not have been held there.
2) The Electoral College has never worked the way it was intended - as a deliberative body that will reject despots and demagogues - and was always a kludge put together to get the Constitution signed. It is even less likely now to be able to act as originally intended so we should remove it.
3) Reports about the level of security are concerning, and we need a formal investigation as to why it was so lax when POTUS/VPOTUS/et al were to be present.
"Key Purposes of the Electoral College according to Federalist No. 68:
Deliberation and Stability: The system provides a "special body" of electors chosen by the people to deliberate, ensuring the president is chosen with "information and discernment" rather than popular passion, as noted by Yale University.
Preventing Corruption: It guards against foreign manipulation or corruption by preventing the president from being chosen by an existing body (like Congress), which might be susceptible to bribes or influence.
Independence: The Electoral College secures the executive's independence by ensuring they are not dependent on the legislative branch for their appointment, as explained in Wikipedia's Federalists No. 68.
Decentralization: By having electors vote in their respective states, it avoids the chaos of a national popular vote and fosters a "balanced" system that forces candidates to have broad support, notes Colonial Williamsburg.
Popular Participation: While indirectly electing the president, the system still allows the "sense of the people" to choose the electors, balancing popular input with expert deliberation, as outlined by Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History."
I think it's failed at those purposes for the most part, and if anything it's discouraging a lot of voters from participating - regardless of party preference - by leading them to think their vote doesn't matter.
Of course, that was before the 17th Amendment. I think the popular vote indirectly electing the President is an important factor in confidence of the federal government. Splitting the states' electoral votes by total vote percentage would greatly reduce the political power of Gerrymandering.
Is Racket News principally a site that critiques news and social media coverage? I had been under the impression that the articles would convey new information. There no new information here beyond the online madness that anyone on social media sees every day.
I suppose I'd push back at your cynicism re: Comparatore. You don't believe or understand the sincerity of your opposite number. If Democrats ever start suffering from political murder and attempted murder by Republicans (you guys really do seem to have a lock on it, starting with Scalise at least.) I hope you'll look at your own side's rallying with the same jaded eye.
Naturally you dropped populism in there right in the middle, as well you might - the president is an imperfect representative of the same - amd its imortant to not talk about the marxist disaster the left have become - spoiler alert: this guy will not turn out to be a TPUSA member... But why invoke Germany, a nation exhausted by the invading force of religiously motivated rapists which the elites of the nation foisted upon it... Don't know of I'd have taken that particular line to illustrate the "dangers of populism".
To answer the argument that I’m praising Germany by including them in the list of enduring governments. You do realize that the German (exclude East Germany) government is effectively identical in structure to the one the Nazis took over in 1933. The only difference is what parties run it (and that Naziism is illegal).
Not my argument. I was batting at the jab at populism - unconscious on your part, you probably think it's axiomatic that populism is bad. If you're referring to Nazis like Chris thinks, the salient element wasn't populism it was Manichean narratives by a progressive socialist regime (which is basically the heart of what they do), and if the caution is for the AFD (my probably mistaken thought?) you get populism when elites make war on normal people and treat them like garbage.
Mine was a tangential pushback with a bit of slop, rereading. Yours was a good piece.
I would note, however that this is the third hitter who worked a weakness in the security setup around Trump and that would be, itself, an interesting article.
I don't see how the populist reaction to the Weirmar Republic culminating in the subjugation of Europe and the Holocaust is anything other than a cautionary tale about a populism unchecked by by guardrails transforming into one of the (if not THE) greatest evils and horrors of the 20th century.
Oh, I thought he was going AFD. Nazis were just another scapegoating socialist movement - like if commies only grifted on race, as opposed to everything. The problem wasn't populism (or indeed nationalism as the commies pretend), it was the progressive elite's Manichean narratives fed to normies.
"... and a progressive cabal who would like to totally dismantle the electoral college, which was the shim to keep us from electing demagogues, because the electoral college has elected demagogues to the office..."
If I have code in a software that is not working (or working to sabotage other code), I either fix it or remove it. I used to be a big fan of the electoral college, but it failed us catastrophically this past presidential election.
"However, if the Supreme Court, or the Senate, or the electoral college, or the states, allow our political groups and leaders to dismantle any element of our system, the entire system could fail, and fail spectacularly."
John Roberts' immunity ruling was a big step towards failure as he surrendered the Court's role in holding the Executive accountable for actions that enriched the President and effectively neutered Congress's ability to constrain the chief executive. (What force have any laws when those that break them on behalf of the President may be pardoned[1]?)
I fear that the critical mass of voters needed to elect "better" leaders doesn't exist anymore and we're scheduled for bread and circuses until the tent collapses around our ears.
[1] https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/trump-promises-mass-pardons-to-staff-before-leaving-office-d7274d32
It is the best structure for avoiding demagoguery IF the parties function in their roles. Don’t say the electoral college failed spectacularly when you mean the parties failed.
The problem is that parties are entities that sit outside our Constitutional order, and the Electoral College - as currently designed - is blind to their existence. They're an emergent phenomenon that arise out of a foundation that says nothing about them. An Electoral College designed with Parties as entities to be considered (as States are) would look a good deal different, I suspect.
I will agree that the Republican Party failed in its emergent role to produce an acceptable option, and we're now living through the consequences of that failure.
If we had enough political parties to satisfy everyone, the Constitution and federal laws would change every two or three election cycles. Are there no longer any enduring truths?
Federal law changes when there's enough votes to change it - and often every few years. The Constitution is different and requires ratification by the states, so no - that's just hyperbole.
We actually have plenty of parties, the issue is that first past the post ultimately leads to a two-party system - 'cause it doesn't lead to proportional representation.
Businesses and taxpayers need some degree of confidence in planning their future. Changing legalities every two years provides none.
You haven't thought out the implications of this statement.
As I said, it's never performed as it was intended. It doesn't benefit small or rural states, either (that's the Senate) - it benefits battlegrounds.
I've yet to see a good reason to keep it.
It does give people in smaller states a disproportionate amount of power per capita in choosing the President. A Wyoming voter's choice for President counts a couple times more (380%, I've seen bandied around) than someone in California.
Something like that (~125k per EC for WY, ~700k for CA, and that is it's own good reason to eliminate it), but realistically it bears no difference on who is focused on during an election - the states closest to a 50/50 split.
That's more a function of the winner-takes-all nature of the College than the voter-per-delegate imbalance.
I'd be curious to know which of the two smaller states would be more willing to give up. I can see that argument going either way. It would be interesting to see to what extent Democrats would spend effort on winning a fraction of the state's delegation in the Dakotas, and the GOP in New England.
States should split electoral votes proportionally. We would get a truer picture of voter preference.
Or: just do a national popular vote and forget the whole Electoral College thing entirely.
And that's a good thing. Do we want more Californias? The electoral college helped the USA become a nation. We can't renege on Constitutional promises.
If anything the GOP is harmed more by not having the 13mil+ voters in CA have any real voice.
Which promise, exactly? And how does amending it subvert that, exactly?
The promise is states' rights. And if there are enough popular votes for states to ratify changes. so be it. But "it" will no longer be America as founded. We might as well adopt a European parliamentary system.
Excepting that's not how it was designed nor how it works in reality.
And we haven't been the "America as founded" since the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the Constitution.
And there's benefits and trade-offs with a real parliamentary system: it's worth discussing those.
Voters are the problem. Half agree with me and half agree with someone else.
A banger of a column Steve, one of your best ever.
But not one word, Steve, on how those who spew vitriol and hatred about our President might have influenced last night’s party crashing nut case!
I can spew vitriol about our felonious President with the best of them, but believe that he's doing a much better job - while alive - discrediting the mythology and ideology that surrounds him, than martyring him would do. The longer he stays alive and is revealed as the grifting conman that he is, the better it is for the nation.
As he proved in Iran, it does no one any good for an outside party to short-circuit a inevitable succession crisis other than the person who is elevated quickly in his stead (which would be the Midwest's favorite failson, J.D. Vance).
Also, FWIW, the phrase "Second Amendment Solution" (and idea behind it) didn't arise out of the Leftist Swamps.
Remember how Trump celebrated Bob Mueller's death?
Yeah, maybe look in the mirror about how y'all talk too.
“Elect better people” is sound advice.
Thankfully, with the current prez and current congress, we’ve hit rock bottom….right? 🙄
Sadly, not even close.
A couple things:
1) No, a ballroom at the White House would not have mattered because this is not an official state event and it would not have been held there.
2) The Electoral College has never worked the way it was intended - as a deliberative body that will reject despots and demagogues - and was always a kludge put together to get the Constitution signed. It is even less likely now to be able to act as originally intended so we should remove it.
3) Reports about the level of security are concerning, and we need a formal investigation as to why it was so lax when POTUS/VPOTUS/et al were to be present.
The electoral college was a promise to somewhat guarantee states' rights. It barely does that but comes close enough to prevent a rebellion.
Not from what the designers stated.
"Key Purposes of the Electoral College according to Federalist No. 68:
Deliberation and Stability: The system provides a "special body" of electors chosen by the people to deliberate, ensuring the president is chosen with "information and discernment" rather than popular passion, as noted by Yale University.
Preventing Corruption: It guards against foreign manipulation or corruption by preventing the president from being chosen by an existing body (like Congress), which might be susceptible to bribes or influence.
Independence: The Electoral College secures the executive's independence by ensuring they are not dependent on the legislative branch for their appointment, as explained in Wikipedia's Federalists No. 68.
Decentralization: By having electors vote in their respective states, it avoids the chaos of a national popular vote and fosters a "balanced" system that forces candidates to have broad support, notes Colonial Williamsburg.
Popular Participation: While indirectly electing the president, the system still allows the "sense of the people" to choose the electors, balancing popular input with expert deliberation, as outlined by Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History."
I think it's failed at those purposes for the most part, and if anything it's discouraging a lot of voters from participating - regardless of party preference - by leading them to think their vote doesn't matter.
Of course, that was before the 17th Amendment. I think the popular vote indirectly electing the President is an important factor in confidence of the federal government. Splitting the states' electoral votes by total vote percentage would greatly reduce the political power of Gerrymandering.
I think it does just the opposite, especially when there's a split between the popular and EC votes.
As I stated, it's never behaved as intended - so what's the point ?
Is Racket News principally a site that critiques news and social media coverage? I had been under the impression that the articles would convey new information. There no new information here beyond the online madness that anyone on social media sees every day.
I suppose I'd push back at your cynicism re: Comparatore. You don't believe or understand the sincerity of your opposite number. If Democrats ever start suffering from political murder and attempted murder by Republicans (you guys really do seem to have a lock on it, starting with Scalise at least.) I hope you'll look at your own side's rallying with the same jaded eye.
Garbage column.
Naturally you dropped populism in there right in the middle, as well you might - the president is an imperfect representative of the same - amd its imortant to not talk about the marxist disaster the left have become - spoiler alert: this guy will not turn out to be a TPUSA member... But why invoke Germany, a nation exhausted by the invading force of religiously motivated rapists which the elites of the nation foisted upon it... Don't know of I'd have taken that particular line to illustrate the "dangers of populism".
Otherwise, beautiful piece.
To answer the argument that I’m praising Germany by including them in the list of enduring governments. You do realize that the German (exclude East Germany) government is effectively identical in structure to the one the Nazis took over in 1933. The only difference is what parties run it (and that Naziism is illegal).
Not my argument. I was batting at the jab at populism - unconscious on your part, you probably think it's axiomatic that populism is bad. If you're referring to Nazis like Chris thinks, the salient element wasn't populism it was Manichean narratives by a progressive socialist regime (which is basically the heart of what they do), and if the caution is for the AFD (my probably mistaken thought?) you get populism when elites make war on normal people and treat them like garbage.
Mine was a tangential pushback with a bit of slop, rereading. Yours was a good piece.
I would note, however that this is the third hitter who worked a weakness in the security setup around Trump and that would be, itself, an interesting article.
Which Germany are you thinking about?
I don't see how the populist reaction to the Weirmar Republic culminating in the subjugation of Europe and the Holocaust is anything other than a cautionary tale about a populism unchecked by by guardrails transforming into one of the (if not THE) greatest evils and horrors of the 20th century.
Oh, I thought he was going AFD. Nazis were just another scapegoating socialist movement - like if commies only grifted on race, as opposed to everything. The problem wasn't populism (or indeed nationalism as the commies pretend), it was the progressive elite's Manichean narratives fed to normies.
Who are the "progressive elites" in this story? The Weirmar gov't or the National Socialists?
I mean the fascists.
So, the National Socialists.