Fareed Zakaria: The founding fathers

[Drachasor]

Not really. The House of Representatives is as dysfunctional as it is because it is still the branch most closely tied to the will of the electorate, and the will of electorate is often mercurial. The federal system is designed to have representatives successively distanced from the will of the people, so you have one element that is focused on the voters' immediate needs (the House), one element on the less immediate needs (the Senate), one element focused on the needs of the nation as a whole (President), and one element that is only tangentially beholden to the will of the people (the Supreme Court). And except for some rejiggering on the way Presidents and Senators are selected, that's pretty much what we still have.

Really? Because last I checked the President for 8 of the last 12 years seemed pretty dysfunctional and he got elected by everyone. Also, fundamentally the EC doesn't work, because representatives DON'T want to override the will of the people. There'd be a massive outrage if that happened. There's no point to it.

Personally, I'd say the House is so bloody dysfunctional because as soon as a member is elected they have to immediately go and start raising money for re-election. They don't have the time and independence needed to do their actual job and the current system encourages people to run who aren't interested in getting down to work.

I think that's something that reasonable people can disagree about. I do, however, like the idea that the President needs a geographically broad base of support. I don't like the idea that California and Texas as the most populous States would get to essentially choose the President, marginalizing the northeast and midwest. Right now, nine states have half the nation's population. With the electoral college, these states don't come close to electing a president alone.

Given that California and Texas most often strongly disagree on the Presidential choice, I don't see how this is a practical concern. Honestly, if you remove the EC, it wouldn't be Texas and California choosing people. It would be the CITIES in all States (small and large) choosing people...you know, where 90% or so of the population lives. The net loss of power would be from those 10% or so that don't live in cities. It certainly wouldn't marginalize the northeast or midwest, because a lot of people live in those places.

It is worth bearing in mind that in terms of popular vote, Presidential elections have been very close. The EC more than anything exaggerates the small differences in the popular vote making small wins look like big wins/"mandates." I don't think this is a worthwhile feature either. When you look at the popular vote, it actually seems to emphasize how important all votes are.

 

[Chaos]

I didn't say you did. I was responding to your statement that the electoral college exists only to accommodate slow communication. It doesn't.

And I showed the Electoral College wasn´t necessary for that. Unless the Founding Fathers were prone to excessive overcomplication for its own sake, they must have something more than disproportionate representation in mind.

 

[Robert Prey]

Taken from his last Charlie Rose interview:

Whenever we have a problem, we tend to think that our Constitution is the best ever created in the history of the world. The people who wrote the Constitution were demi-gods, it never needs to be changed. Our political system is the best in the world. The truth is we have a pretty complicated, antiquated system that’s grown pretty dysfunctional.

Do you agree with Zakaria's views here?

The US Constitution is the greatest, most brilliant political document ever written. It's admitted flaws (slavery, Women's suffrage) have been largely corrected by the wisdom of its amendment procedure, notwithstanding the ill advised 16th and 17th Amendments. The problems we have today can be directly traced to the Federal government and the courts refusing to abide by the Constitution. The Founders were flawed, but nonetheless political geniuses, the greatest in all of human history.

 

[Drachasor]

Yeah, I'm just not seeing the "treated as demigods" thing.

 

[PGH]

The US Constitution is the greatest, most brilliant political document ever written. It's admitted flaws (slavery, Women's suffrage) have been largely corrected by the wisdom of its amendment procedure, notwithstanding the ill advised 16th and 17th Amendments. The problems we have today can be directly traced to the Federal government and the courts refusing to abide by the Constitution. The Founders were flawed, but nonetheless political geniuses, the greatest in all of human history.

Yeah, I'm just not seeing the "treated as demigods" thing.

There isn't a smiley to express how hard I'm laughing.

 

[Travis]

The US Constitution is the greatest, most brilliant political document ever written. It's admitted flaws (slavery, Women's suffrage) have been largely corrected by the wisdom of its amendment procedure, notwithstanding the ill advised 16th and 17th Amendments. The problems we have today can be directly traced to the Federal government and the courts refusing to abide by the Constitution. The Founders were flawed, but nonetheless political geniuses, the greatest in all of human history.

Please elaborate on the flaws in current government that are not expressly permitted by either the original document or the subsequent amendments.


Why do I get the feeling that it will start with an "A" and rhyme with "torbortion?"

 

[Newtons Bit]

Please elaborate on the flaws in current government that are not expressly permitted by either the original document or the subsequent amendments.


Why do I get the feeling that it will start with an "A" and rhyme with "torbortion?"

Judicial Review.








What?!

 

[Drachasor]

Judicial Review.

Judicial review is good stuff though.

 

[marksman]

Really? Because last I checked the President for 8 of the last 12 years seemed pretty dysfunctional and he got elected by everyone.

How does this statement respond to what you quoted of me? The fact that you didn't like W doesn't mean the electoral college is to blame. If the election were run by popular vote, Gore and Bush would have run very different campaigns. Heck, Gore and Bush may not have been the candidates at all, and there's no guarantee you would have liked their replacements any better. Gore lost (conspiracy theories aside) because he lost states he should have won like his home state of Tennessee and Florida.

Also, fundamentally the EC doesn't work, because representatives DON'T want to override the will of the people.

Electoral veto isn't necessary for the EC to work. The EC works because of the way it weighs votes and spreads them out amongst less populous states, forcing presidents to achieve a broad geographic support.

Personally, I'd say the House is so bloody dysfunctional because as soon as a member is elected they have to immediately go and start raising money for re-election.

Yes, as was intended. And to get that money they have to pander. The House is supposed to be a house of panders.

Given that California and Texas most often strongly disagree on the Presidential choice, I don't see how this is a practical concern.

The Constitution wasn't written based on the fact that Virginia and New York, the largest of the first 13 States always agreed. They never agreed on candidates (other than Washington) either.

If you take Texas out, a President could win with the NY and the states that border it and California and the states that border it. That's a recipe for Civil War.

It is worth bearing in mind that in terms of popular vote, Presidential elections have been very close.

It's worth noting that because of the existence of the EC, the candidates chosen may not have been the candidates chosen without the EC.

The EC more than anything exaggerates the small differences in the popular vote making small wins look like big wins/"mandates." I don't think this is a worthwhile feature either.

I don't care what "it looks like". You think people won't spin marginal popular vote victories into mandates too?

 

[Drachasor]

How does this statement respond to what you quoted of me? The fact that you didn't like W doesn't mean the electoral college is to blame. If the election were run by popular vote, Gore and Bush would have run very different campaigns. Heck, Gore and Bush may not have been the candidates at all, and there's no guarantee you would have liked their replacements any better. Gore lost (conspiracy theories aside) because he lost states he should have won like his home state of Tennessee and Florida.

I was pointing out the EC doesn't produce better results. You were saying it did and that the House of Representatives was so much worse than everyone else. I don't think this is clearly the case at all that the problem is because the House is elected by popular vote. You certainly didn't make a convincing case for it.

Electoral veto isn't necessary for the EC to work. The EC works because of the way it weighs votes and spreads them out amongst less populous states, forcing presidents to achieve a broad geographic support.

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

Yes, as was intended. And to get that money they have to pander. The House is supposed to be a house of panders.

It wasn't intended at all. This wasn't true in the days of the Founding Fathers nor for most of our history. What it HAS resulted in is Representatives being captured by corporate interests because they and other special interests groups (which DO NOT represent the will of the people), can raise money more effectively.

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

The Constitution wasn't written based on the fact that Virginia and New York, the largest of the first 13 States always agreed. They never agreed on candidates (other than Washington) either.

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. If one State had 60% of the people vote one way and 40% vote another, then two or more much smaller states could turn the election if they had an 20-80 split.

Urban interests would dominate, of course, but that just makes sense since most people live in cities.

If you take Texas out, a President could win with the NY and the states that border it and California and the states that border it. That's a recipe for Civil War.

Again, if it is decided by a popular vote, there is no "winning States." In fact, the Republicans in California and New York would actually be given a voice in Presidential elections. The EC makes it so they are not heard the vast, vast, vast majority of the time.

I don't care what "it looks like". You think people won't spin marginal popular vote victories into mandates too?

When the EC votes have happened to be close, candidates haven't had much success making it seem like a mandate. There's no reason to think that would be different with a close popular vote.

 

[Chaos]

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?

 

[Newtons Bit]

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?

We went over it in this thread not long ago...

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Actually, we are not really sure what the intention was for the Electoral College. The idea itself was scrapped, but after going through more ideas and coming near the deadline they brought it back and made it ambiguous as to how the electors were exactly decided. The Federalist Papers added some post hoc rationalisations. In fact, the second amendment after the Bill of Rights was required to fix the college. Over time we have become more democratic with respect to the electors, but we still have debate about whether the larger States would proportionally give electors to the different candidates.

As to the OP, I agree. Just look at the Tea Party, they even cosplay!

 

[mumblethrax]

What´s the justification for the disproportionate representation?

"It's in the Constitution!"

 

[Robert Prey]

Please elaborate on the flaws in current government that are not expressly permitted by either the original document or the subsequent amendments.


Why do I get the feeling that it will start with an "A" and rhyme with "torbortion?"

A complete answer would require a book, not a single post. But let's start with money--Federal Reserve Notes -- Completely Unconstitutional and the cause of a 14 trillion debt and "dollar' that has lost 95 percent of its value.since 1913.

 

[BobTheCoward]

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?

Because there are other values just as important as democracy. One is the principles of equality among sovereign nations. Votes in the UN are not allocated based on a nation's population. There are similar things in the EU.

The electoral college strikes a balance between the importance of proportioning power to individuals and to sovereign states.

 

[sarge]

If you take Texas out, a President could win with the NY and the states that border it and California and the states that border it. That's a recipe for Civil War.

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.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

The US Constitution is the greatest, most brilliant political document ever written. It's admitted flaws (slavery, Women's suffrage) have been largely corrected by the wisdom of its amendment procedure, notwithstanding the ill advised 16th and 17th Amendments. The problems we have today can be directly traced to the Federal government and the courts refusing to abide by the Constitution. The Founders were flawed, but nonetheless political geniuses, the greatest in all of human history.

What other political documents have you read and why do you regard the US Constitution as the greatest of them all in comparison?

In the same vein, what other political geniuses do you know of and why were the founders the greatest in all of human history in comparison?

 

[mumblethrax]

Because there are other values just as important as democracy. One is the principles of equality among sovereign nations. Votes in the UN are not allocated based on a nation's population. There are similar things in the EU.

It's telling that we have to compare the US to non-states in order to make sense out of this "sovereigns nations" stuff, and that the "similar things" in the EU are not identified (nowhere in the structure of the EU do we see malapportionment approaching the levels that we see in the US Senate). The Articles of Confederation failed, the US under the Constitution is a much stronger union than the EU or the UN, and the second American revolution (the Civil War) was a (re)formative experience. This necessary shift in conception needs to be acknowledged, but Americans have distorted views of their political reality, thanks in part to the need to justify the absurdity of our dysfunctional representative structure. We're still living under the Articles of Confederation when it's convenient in defending the stupider aspects of the sacred Constitution.

It's hopeful that someone with a national platform is talking about it.

 

[Robert Prey]

What other political documents have you read and why do you regard the US Constitution as the greatest of them all in comparison?

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.


In the same vein, what other political geniuses do you know of and why were the founders the greatest in all of human history in comparison?

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.