Fareed Zakaria: The founding fathers

[marksman]

I was pointing out the EC doesn't produce better results.

We don't know that because we don't who would have run without an EC system, or how they would have conducted themselves.

You were saying it did and that the House of Representatives was so much worse than everyone else.

No I was saying that the system is designed with some reps being more closely tied to the electorate and some being less tied to the electorate.

Oh, I forgot. We want GEOGRAPHY to vote, not actual people.

Yes, because it's a big nation and we don't want the President to feel beholden only to one geographic region of that nation.

This wasn't true in the days of the Founding Fathers nor for most of our history.

I know it's fashionable to say it, but I'd like to see actual evidence that the House of Reps was a more deliberative body before the date when it was "captured by corporate interests". What date was that by the way, so I can make a comparison?

I rather suspect that before corporate interests got involved, Representatives tended to be independently wealthy or products of a party machine. Or do you think otherwise?

If they actually pandered to the public rather than special interests, we'd be better off.

Maybe, but that's not what the House of Representatives ever was.

Point is, with a pure popular vote, it wouldn't matter if one State agreed with another. You wouldn't win States at all, you'd win individuals in States.

Right, but you'd still go after trends. You'd go after regional interests because that's the best way to capture regions of votes. I wouldn't have to cater to, say the Northeast, if I ran on a "Let's drub the Northeast" campaign. The electoral college makes the math on such a strategy very very difficult specifically because it's a winner-take-all calculus by state. So scapegoating a region tends to backfire.

But if you only need individual votes, playing regional loyalties against one another becomes a very cogent strategy. If you can get high turnout in one region and depress turnout elsewhere, you can easily win a campaign by pandering to regional interests.

When the EC votes have happened to be close, candidates haven't had much success making it seem like a mandate.

I'm pretty sure W was claiming a mandate and making headway even though he barely won the electoral college and lost the popular vote. I remember shaking my head sadly at the phenomenon way back in 2000. "Mandate" is just a meaningless catchphrase. What it really means is "momentum".

 

[Drachasor]

No I was saying that the system is designed with some reps being more closely tied to the electorate and some being less tied to the electorate.

The Senate is generally considered more responsible for what it is worth. They are directly elected too. The differences have a lot more to do with being less localized than anything else. It has nothing to do with being directly elected.

Yes, because it's a big nation and we don't want the President to feel beholden only to one geographic region of that nation.

And how would he be? A city of a million people anywhere would be just as important as said city anywhere else. The President would be beholden to cities more than rural areas. That makes sense considering that's where 90% or so of our population is.

I know it's fashionable to say it, but I'd like to see actual evidence that the House of Reps was a more deliberative body before the date when it was "captured by corporate interests". What date was that by the way, so I can make a comparison?

I rather suspect that before corporate interests got involved, Representatives tended to be independently wealthy or products of a party machine. Or do you think otherwise?

I wouldn't advocate that we go back to how we did things 100 years ago. I merely point out that Represenatives have to start gathering money as soon as they are elected. That's a huge waste. I'd advocate public financing of all elections to avoid undue influence and the current things that waste time.

But certainly, things were better 60-some years ago. Social Security, Medicare, and things like that could never be passed today.

Maybe, but that's not what the House of Representatives ever was.

It was more like that than it is now.

Right, but you'd still go after trends. You'd go after regional interests because that's the best way to capture regions of votes. I wouldn't have to cater to, say the Northeast, if I ran on a "Let's drub the Northeast" campaign. The electoral college makes the math on such a strategy very very difficult specifically because it's a winner-take-all calculus by state. So scapegoating a region tends to backfire.

That's completely wrong. In fact, the winner-takes-all strategy means there's more of a reason to ignore regions. If you can't win the State, like a Republican and New York, then there's no reason to waste time there. The result is most of the time is spent in relatively few Swing States. In fact, if you recall, actual campaigns today tend to attack certain regions more often than not. Scapegoating a region works very, very well.

On the other hand, if you had a direct popular vote, then a Republican couldn't ignore the Northeast. He'd have to campaign there because there are a lot of people that could vote for him (or her) and those votes would matter. You'd actually have more campaigning in more places.

But if you only need individual votes, playing regional loyalties against one another becomes a very cogent strategy. If you can get high turnout in one region and depress turnout elsewhere, you can easily win a campaign by pandering to regional interests.

And how are you going to depress turnout somewhere? Why do that when you can get more votes by increasing the turnout of people voting for you?

Again, playing regional loyalties against each other is what they are doing now. Note Palin in the last election and "real Americans", general attacks on "east coast liberals" etc.

I'm pretty sure W was claiming a mandate and making headway even

though he barely won the electoral college and lost the popular vote. I remember shaking my head sadly at the phenomenon way back in 2000. "Mandate" is just a meaningless catchphrase. What it really means is "momentum".

And no one took him seriously on it. But this doesn't really matter, so we can ignore it if you want.

 

[mumblethrax]

Right, but you'd still go after trends. You'd go after regional interests because that's the best way to capture regions of votes.

Why would you go after "regions of votes", absent the electoral college? That's an arbitrary way to divvy up the body politic, and not a very useful one. Look at how the national TV networks go after viewers: are they more interested in "Tallahassee" or "Men 18-35"?

 

[Darth Rotor]

What´s the justification for the disproportionate representation? Are people in more populous states not real Americans, that their votes count less than those of people in less populous states?

Did it ever occur to you that Jefferson, Madison, et al were glad to be quit of Europe thanks to nonsense like that?

They took some ideas from the Enlightenment, dropped the whinging, and decided to give them a test drive. We have so far amended that test drive via a very difficult process, 27 times.

And it still works.

Get over it, the experiment continues.

 

[Drachasor]

Did it ever occur to you that Jefferson, Madison, et al were glad to be quit of Europe thanks to nonsense like that?

What are you talking about? Europe wasn't full of Democracies with proportional representation back then.

And it still works.

I'd say it doesn't given the problems they have just getting a vote together to keep the country functioning for a limited period among numerous other major issues.

 

[Chaos]

Did it ever occur to you that Jefferson, Madison, et al were glad to be quit of Europe thanks to nonsense like that?

They took some ideas from the Enlightenment, dropped the whinging, and decided to give them a test drive. We have so far amended that test drive via a very difficult process, 27 times.

And it still works.

Get over it, the experiment continues.

I see.. they replaced "Nobles count more than commoners" with "People from some states count more than people from other states".

How about you experiment a bit with our new-fangled, progressive European "every vote counts the same" approach?

 

[Humes fork]

How about you experiment a bit with our new-fangled, progressive European "every vote counts the same" approach?

Unfortunately, that is not the case in every European country.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Several. But of course, the proof is not in the words but their result -- until recently, the greatest, freest, most prosperous nation in history. If you want to try and learn something, focus on that in favor of ridiculous, sophomoric challenges.

Sophomoric? I was simply interested in why you consider the US Constitution as the greatest political document ever. A way of demonstrating this would be comparing and contrasting this to other political documents throughout the ages. For example, the Cyrus Cylinder, the Mayflower Compact, the English Bill of Rights 1689, Magna Carta, the Rights of Man, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, The Beveridge Report, the Summa Theologica and so on.

Nobody doubts that America is free and prosperous, but one must be able to link that back to its original document rather than -say- its ability to remain unentangled from world affairs due to its geographical location. Anything less is specious reasoning.

Other than guys like Madison, Adams, Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Mason, Sherman, and their associates I can't think of any off hand, except for Reagan, perhaps. I don't think that Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, FDR or Obama can quite compare. Perhaps you can think of some better examples. But I sorta doubt it.

I'm puzzled why the only other 'political geniuses' than the founders have to be Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, FDR or Obama.

Why are they greater political geniuses than - say- Chānakya, Plato, Aristotle, Ibn Khaldun, Thomas Hobbes, Machiavelli, John Locke, Burke, Hegel, Mozi, Hayek and so on?

 

[Ryokan]

Other than guys like Madison, Adams, Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Mason, Sherman, and their associates I can't think of any off hand, except for Reagan, perhaps. I don't think that Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, FDR or Obama can quite compare. Perhaps you can think of some better examples. But I sorta doubt it.

Well, how would you compare the American constitution to, say, the Norwegian one written in 1814, and the influence of the genius of the Crown Prince of Denmark-Norway, Christian Frederik, Nicolai Wergeland and later his son, Henrik Wergeland? At the time it was the most radical constitutions in Europe, and gave the right to vote to an unprecedented amount of people.

Or how about the monumental work of enlightened genius Mustafa "Ataturk" Kemal and the Turkish constitution. Sure, it was written in the 20th century, much later than both the American and Norwegian ones, but you can't deny the greatness of it.

But there are so many countries and constitutions in the world, no one can expect you to know much about two random ones, even if these are great examples in history, next to the American one. But since you've declared it to be the best, are there any others you would mention, that you've studied and found lacking?

 

[Chaos]

I'm puzzled why the only other 'political geniuses' than the founders have to be Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, FDR or Obama.

Did you notice how glibly he put Obama on the same level as Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot? And some people still wonder why I cannot respect right-wing patriots...

Why are they greater political geniuses than - say- Chānakya, Plato, Aristotle, Ibn Khaldun, Thomas Hobbes, Machiavelli, John Locke, Burke, Hegel, Mozi, Hayek and so on?

I´d venture a guess he has never heard of any of these. None of them are Americans, after all.

 

[Ryokan]

But of course, the proof is not in the words but their result -- until recently, the greatest, freest, most prosperous nation in history. If you want to try and learn something, focus on that in favor of ridiculous, sophomoric challenges.

What criteria are you using here?

Greatest is hard to measure, and would mostly be in the eye of the beholder. It's a very few people who don't think their own country is greatest.

Freest? How do you measure that? Treatment of natives, racial segregation, McCarthyism.. The US has many dark spots when it comes giving freedom to everyone, even into modern history. Most freedom of the press indexes put the Scandinavian countries way ahead of the US. Most European countries have way better social mobility than the US, which in many ways is the best measure of freedom.

Most prosperous? By what measure? Norway is the richest country in the history of the world, and the US doesn't even come close.

I'm asking honestly, by what criteria are we measuring?

 

[Undesired Walrus]

It should be pointed out that a rejection of the founders as demi-gods should not disqualify them from the hall of great political thinkers. Indeed, I think they would more more honoured to be mentioned in the same breath as Machiavelli, Aristotle, Hegel, Plato etc than looking down on them from the mountain top. They were secularists after all.

 

[Darat]

Comment: Several. But of course, the proof is not in the words but their result -- until recently, the greatest, freest, most prosperous nation in history. If you want to try and learn something, focus on that in favor of ridiculous, sophomoric challenges.

When was this "until recently"? Have you forgotten that in your country segregation was only finally outlawed in 1964, for most of your country's existence "freest" is not the word I would use.

 

[Chaos]

When was this "until recently"? Have you forgotten that in your country segregation was only finally outlawed in 1964, for most of your countries existence "freest" is not the word I would use.

From the context, I assume that "recently" is a day in Januarly 2009.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

I thought the US stopped being the free in 1965 when LBJ passed Medicare. At least that is what Reagan said.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I understand your point, but I'm a pciker of nits. I don't believe that the exclusion of Texas allows the winner of only New York and California and the states that border them to carry the election.


New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Massachusetts,Vermont, Rhode Island, California, Oregon, Nevada, and Arizona net 155 EC votes, while the remaining states minus Texas net the other candidate 349 votes. It's a 2 to 1 landslide - a mandate if you will.

Well, he got the states wrong, but the EC does allow for a potential boondoggle, so the thought that it give no weight to the big cities (read: populous states because the big cities are in those states) is rather wrong.

You could lose 38 states, not taking a single vote, but win the Presidency by winning 12 states by one vote in each. CA, TX, NY, FL, PA, IL, OH, MI, NC, GA, NJ, MA for 273 electoral votes. Assuming that a little less than half the country lives in the two groups 38/12, the POTUS could be elected and lose the popular vote by 50,000,000.

And this is actually an improvement. A couple of decades ago, it would've worked with just ten states. The dissipation of the population through the sun belt has done more than just give FL and TX some clout; it's taken away from the votes in former eastern powerhouse states.

 

[Robert Prey]

Sophomoric? I was simply interested in why you consider the US Constitution as the greatest political document ever. A way of demonstrating this would be comparing and contrasting this to other political documents throughout the ages. For example, the Cyrus Cylinder, the Mayflower Compact, the English Bill of Rights 1689, Magna Carta, the Rights of Man, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, The Beveridge Report, the Summa Theologica and so on.

Nobody doubts that America is free and prosperous, but one must be able to link that back to its original document rather than -say- its ability to remain unentangled from world affairs due to its geographical location. Anything less is specious reasoning.

I'm puzzled why the only other 'political geniuses' than the founders have to be Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, FDR or Obama.

Why are they greater political geniuses than - say- Chānakya, Plato, Aristotle, Ibn Khaldun, Thomas Hobbes, Machiavelli, John Locke, Burke, Hegel, Mozi, Hayek and so on?

It would be a stretch to classify most of the documents you refer to as 'Constitutions" -- the context of what I assumed this thread was about (Summa Theologica.a Constitution??") And there is a difference between a political philosopher and political genius. The Founders were influenced by many political philosophers some of which you mention, but their genius was putting it together and getting it passed. Now, if you have other ideas... Compare and contrast.

 

[Drachasor]

It would be a stretch to classify most of the documents you refer to as 'Constitutions" -- the context of what I assumed this thread was about (Summa Theologica.a Constitution??") And there is a difference between a political philosopher and political genius. The Founders were influenced by many political philosophers some of which you mention, but their genius was putting it together and getting it passed. Now, if you have other ideas... Compare and contrast.

Who would you rank as coming up after the Founding Fathers? What other Constitutions are also really good?

 

[Newtons Bit]

When was this "until recently"? Have you forgotten that in your country segregation was only finally outlawed in 1964, for most of your country's existence "freest" is not the word I would use.

Free for white people. You know, those who matter. </sarcasm>

 

[Robert Prey]

What criteria are you using here?

Greatest is hard to measure, and would mostly be in the eye of the beholder. It's a very few people who don't think their own country is greatest.

Freest? How do you measure that? Treatment of natives, racial segregation, McCarthyism.. The US has many dark spots when it comes giving freedom to everyone, even into modern history. Most freedom of the press indexes put the Scandinavian countries way ahead of the US. Most European countries have way better social mobility than the US, which in many ways is the best measure of freedom.

Most prosperous? By what measure? Norway is the richest country in the history of the world, and the US doesn't even come close.

I'm asking honestly, by what criteria are we measuring?

Every country has its imperfections. We are definitely not the freest or most prosperous nation in the world per capita economically. That is why I used the term (until recently). We lost 600,000 in a war to free the slaves while other nations still enslave today. As to social mobility, I have no idea what you are talking about.