Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: The Republic

  1. #1
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428

    The Republic

    Recently it has been said, and seconded, that "The republic has become an enemy of freedom." Reminds me of a Pogo Possum cartoon from 1951:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Wehavemet.jpg 
Views:	232 
Size:	35.8 KB 
ID:	10478
    WE are the "Republic"! WE have allowed the government of the Republic to be co-opted by those we elected to represent our interests in Washington D.C. The head of our government does not act in the best interests of the citizens of the Republic, yet the Legislative and Judicial branches are reluctant (to the point of inaction) to say "STOP! We cannot permit your proposed action regarding ________." There are those who question the total absence of vetting the incumbent - birth and education records are questionable and protected. A voting record of 90% "Present" in the Senate; "Recess Appointments" when the Senate was not in recess; and the issuance of more Executive Orders than all previous presidents COMBINED (when Congress does vote contrary to his desires). The appointments of known Socialists, Marxists, and other assorted Communists - and nothing BUT - to his cabinet and adviser staff, Operation Fast & Furious. These facts were all known prior to the 2012 Presidential Election, and the Republic ostensibly re-elected him... so he could continue to mock our system of government. I say "ostensibly" because there are those who believe that our votes only count if they are cast for the "designated winner" as determined by the "King Makers/Shadow Government".

    Our government is no more trustworthy today than it was when the Indian Treaties were broken! Who is to blame? WE ARE... not some faceless, nameless, phantom Republic. Those who manipulate our elections are much more clever than the hoi polloi can discern. Pax...
    Last edited by Gil223; 05-30-2013 at 03:08 AM. Reason: Typo
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Gil223 View Post
    Recently it has been said, and seconded, that "The republic has become an enemy of freedom." Reminds me of a Pogo Possum cartoon from 1951:
    WE are the "Republic"! WE have allowed the government of the Republic to be co-opted by those we elected to represent our interests in Washington D.C.

    Who is to blame? WE ARE... not some faceless, nameless, phantom Republic. Those who manipulate our elections are much more clever than the hoi polloi can discern. Pax...
    Got a frog in your pocket?

    I'm 50, and I've voted in every election since I turned 18. At no time in my life, or probably my parents' voting lives, has voting made a positive change to the big picture.

    We don't select who we send to Washington. We don't even get to choose who is on the ballot. We only get to pick between those who have been chosen for us, and trying to effect change is an exercise in frustration, from the precinct level on up.

    Last edited by KBCraig; 05-30-2013 at 05:13 AM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    Got a frog in your pocket?

    I'm 50, and I've voted in every election since I turned 18. At no time in my life, or probably my parents' voting lives, has voting made a positive change to the big picture.
    And for this we can thank our two party system. We have become so used to having two major parties, that we are complacent in our voting. Why? Because there is no single third party with the financial or philosophical backing, or the nationally recognized name. We have a handful of insufficient and extraneous political parties which divert a few votes from the "mainstream parties" (for lack of a better term). The popular belief that voting for a third party candidate is like not voting at all, or tantamount to voting for the person you would least like to see in office, is not unfounded. (Personally, I get a chuckle from the term "Independent Party"... which, once organized and fielding candidates, is no longer strictly politically "independent"... just independent of the two major parties) Based upon your statement, my question to you is then, "Being aware that the big picture is unchanged by voting, WHY DO YOU EVEN BOTHER TO VOTE?"
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    We don't select who we send to Washington. We don't even get to choose who is on the ballot. We only get to pick between those who have been chosen for us, and trying to effect change is an exercise in frustration, from the precinct level on up.
    You're correct. The choices are made by the party leadership (DNC/RNC), and we are then forced to choose between what we may see as a "bad choice" vs a "worse choice". At this time, there is no single, viable third party. Even if there was, how would we know who is really behind it and what it's true goals would be? We know we can't depend on the MSM to tell us - the "talking heads" all have their own agenda, and they will lie to us just as quickly as will the politicians. Where do we get "the straight scoop"? We don't. Our politicians are untrustworthy, our media is untrustworthy, and our gut instincts can be unreliable. Frustration builds when we are essentially forced to choose between "the lesser of two evils"... which is what the process frequently becomes in the final analysis. As long as a "public service" candidate requires BIG MONEY to run a successful campaign, the needs of the people will never be met - only the will of the party. Nonetheless, we ARE the Republic - we just lose control of our government during every election cycle. (2) Pax..
    Last edited by Gil223; 05-30-2013 at 03:03 PM. Reason: Typo
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Gil223 View Post
    SNIP Who is to blame? WE ARE... not some faceless, nameless, phantom Republic. Those who manipulate our elections are much more clever than the hoi polloi can discern. Pax...

    Don't include me in your "we", please. I find it somewhat insulting.

    I have no arrogant opinion that I am entitled to exert my will over another just because I am part of a majority. Nor, that I may elect another to represent me and to exert his will on my behalf over others.

    Of course the constitution doesn't work! It can't. Primarily and specifically because it does not govern by consent. As long as some people can rule over others without the subjects' consent, it won't work. It can't.

    Just look at the lies told throughout history in order to justify and legitimize government. Divine right of kings, the king protects his subjects, the will of the majority, Communism, Marxism, etc, etc., etc. But, the fact that every single one of them quivered in fear that the subjects might rise up proves they were ruling only so long as the subjects did not object so strongly they decided to fight back proves the only legitimate basis lies in the vicinity of consent.

    John Locke gave the clue in Second Treatise on Government 1689. All men are born equal. Jefferson, with Franklin supplying editorial assistance, reminded us again with the Declaration of Independence: "all men are created equal." If all are equal, then none are entitled to rule over another without that other's consent. No other possible reason is good enough. Not "public benefit". Not "will of the majority". Nothing.*

    This aligns very closely with the yearning for liberty written on the souls of men.

    Thus, its not who is manipulating elections that is the problem. Its that there are elections in the first place, those elections purporting to give legitimacy to a majority to rule over others.

    The only way it can work is if everybody has the option to join or opt-out, and once joined can withdraw if they don't like the way government is going. Genuine consent. Everything else just locks in the opportunity for the power-hungry to control and coerce everybody. And, in 30K years of history, the power-hungry have yet to pass up that opportunity.


    *A related argument: none are so morally superior over me to justify them subjecting me to their will coercively. Who in history was so morally superior as to have standing to rule others based on that moral superiority? Jesus? Buddha? Lao Tse? Wanta take bets whether being so superior, they would have turned down the chance?
    Last edited by Citizen; 05-30-2013 at 11:35 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    Only The Constitution Party represents the conservative American Country Class against the progressive Ruling Class of demotic, repugnant and lying D, R and L.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  6. #6
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Don't include me in your "we", please. I find it somewhat insulting.

    I have no arrogant opinion that I am entitled to exert my will over another just because I am part of a majority. Nor, that I may elect another to represent me and to exert his will on my behalf over others.

    Of course the constitution doesn't work! It can't. Primarily and specifically because it does not govern by consent. As long as some people can rule over others without the subjects' consent, it won't work. It can't.

    Just look at the lies told throughout history in order to justify and legitimize government. Divine right of kings, the king protects his subjects, the will of the majority, Communism, Marxism, etc, etc., etc. But, the fact that every single one of them quivered in fear that the subjects might rise up proves they were ruling only so long as the subjects did not object so strongly they decided to fight back proves the only legitimate basis lies in the vicinity of consent.

    John Locke gave the clue in Second Treatise on Government 1689. All men are born equal. Jefferson, with Franklin supplying editorial assistance, reminded us again with the Declaration of Independence: "all men are created equal." If all are equal, then none are entitled to rule over another without that other's consent. No other possible reason is good enough. Not "public benefit". Not "will of the majority". Nothing.*

    This aligns very closely with the yearning for liberty written on the souls of men.

    Thus, its not who is manipulating elections that is the problem. Its that there are elections in the first place, those elections purporting to give legitimacy to a majority to rule over others.

    The only way it can work is if everybody has the option to join or opt-out, and once joined can withdraw if they don't like the way government is going. Genuine consent. Everything else just locks in the opportunity for the power-hungry to control and coerce everybody. And, in 30K years of history, the power-hungry have yet to pass up that opportunity.


    *A related argument: none are so morally superior over me to justify them subjecting me to their will coercively. Who in history was so morally superior as to have standing to rule others based on that moral superiority? Jesus? Buddha? Lao Tse? Wanta take bets whether being so superior, they would have turned down the chance?
    ... Have you been inside my head?

    I had no idea our views were so similar (on this matter).

  7. #7
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Don't include me in your "we", please. I find it somewhat insulting.

    I have no arrogant opinion that I am entitled to exert my will over another just because I am part of a majority. Nor, that I may elect another to represent me and to exert his will on my behalf over others.

    Of course the constitution doesn't work! It can't. Primarily and specifically because it does not govern by consent. As long as some people can rule over others without the subjects' consent, it won't work. It can't.
    The way I understood the purpose of the constitution, and any just function of government for that matter, to be was to represent, "we the people," when dealing with other states and countries (on the 'grand' scale) and to defend life, liberty, and property at home. If the laws on the books do not fall within those limited purposes then the laws are unjust.


    The only way it can work is if everybody has the option to join or opt-out, and once joined can withdraw if they don't like the way government is going. Genuine consent. Everything else just locks in the opportunity for the power-hungry to control and coerce everybody. And, in 30K years of history, the power-hungry have yet to pass up that opportunity.


    *A related argument: none are so morally superior over me to justify them subjecting me to their will coercively. Who in history was so morally superior as to have standing to rule others based on that moral superiority? Jesus? Buddha? Lao Tse? Wanta take bets whether being so superior, they would have turned down the chance?
    There should never be any 'rulers' (unless you're religious then you deity should be your ruler) there should only be representatives. The elections should be based on how well an individual can represent the needs of all (everyone). There are a few things that benefit everyone, but the major one is commerce.

    Oh and corporate personhood should be banned.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  8. #8
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Don't include me in your "we", please. I find it somewhat insulting.
    I'm sorry, but I cannot disinclude you from the Republic. That power is not mine. You live in this Republic, and I will assume that you were born in this Republic, which makes you a de facto citizen by birth and a member of this Republic.
    Your rant seems to be focused on the fact that we have an electoral process and the right to vote. I had nothing to do with that - I was not consulted, or even CC'd when that decision was made. The part of the election process about which I have the most concern is the Electoral College having the power to overturn the popular vote.
    But, this thread is not about voting per se, it was in response to the claim that "The republic has become an enemy of freedom." Inasmuch as it is the citizenry that constitutes "the Republic" - and I believe it is safe to say - that the vast majority of the citizens do not support the abrogation of our freedoms, or the abandonment of our Constitution. It is the government of the Republic which has become the "enemy of freedom". If you voted then you assented to the process and validated it by your participation therein. If you did not vote, then you have been true to your personal philosophy. However, I have no interest in knowing what you did on November 6th last year, as it is none of my business.
    As for your "finding it (including you in 'we') insulting", if that's your finding then you have owned it. Obviously, nobody can "find" or "feel" for another person - these are personal activities, not team efforts. This was a forum post - an idea shared in-general with any who might wish to join in - it was not an IM specifically addressed to you. But, thank you for sharing! Pax...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Gil223 View Post
    I'm sorry, but I cannot disinclude you from the Republic. That power is not mine. You live in this Republic, and I will assume that you were born in this Republic, which makes you a de facto citizen by birth and a member of this Republic.
    Your rant seems to be focused on the fact that we have an electoral process and the right to vote. I had nothing to do with that - I was not consulted, or even CC'd when that decision was made. The part of the election process about which I have the most concern is the Electoral College having the power to overturn the popular vote.
    But, this thread is not about voting per se, it was in response to the claim that "The republic has become an enemy of freedom." Inasmuch as it is the citizenry that constitutes "the Republic" - and I believe it is safe to say - that the vast majority of the citizens do not support the abrogation of our freedoms, or the abandonment of our Constitution. It is the government of the Republic which has become the "enemy of freedom". If you voted then you assented to the process and validated it by your participation therein. If you did not vote, then you have been true to your personal philosophy. However, I have no interest in knowing what you did on November 6th last year, as it is none of my business.
    As for your "finding it (including you in 'we') insulting", if that's your finding then you have owned it. Obviously, nobody can "find" or "feel" for another person - these are personal activities, not team efforts. This was a forum post - an idea shared in-general with any who might wish to join in - it was not an IM specifically addressed to you. But, thank you for sharing! Pax...
    A rant? Oh, ok. Lemme see. Within the last decade, millions of my countrymen were thrown out of work, forced to endure economic duress that was entirely avoidable, had their savings diminished by deliberately created price inflation, etc, etc, etc. And, when I lay out one of the fundamental false premises making all that possible, you call it a rant? Really? A rant? I suppose we should call the second paragraph of the Declaration of Indepence a rant? You know the one. "We hold these truths to be self-evident...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,...consent of the governed"? I guess that's all John Locke's Second Treatise on Government was--a rant. Nothing of value there. Just the rantings of men who didn't have enough sense not to wear wigs and sheer hose.

    Whereas your false-premise* commentary about elections and everybody being responsible was not a rant?

    Oh, yes. I understand now.

    /sarcasm


    Also, don't try to slip in a strawman argument--first sentences in the quote above. I expressly objected to you including me in your "we". Not being coerced into participating in "the republic".


    *I say false-premise commentary because you are still operating under the false-premise that voters magically aquire standing to rule others if they can achieve a majority. And, you actually supported your arguments in part by saying I am subject to the rule of others without my consent merely by being born here. You basically validated the baseless majority-rule premise, and moreover, validated me being forced to go along with arrangements made even before I was born. Thanks for validating my oppressors. You wrote that you had nothing to do with it. This was a nice piece of diversion. You didn't have anything to do with it, but you can at least stop validating it.

    For all your agreement and validation of a psuedo-right to rule others without their consent, maybe I should start actively suspecting what you intend to do to others (including myself) with your majority power should you succeed in getting it.
    Last edited by Citizen; 06-02-2013 at 02:18 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    Tyranny of the majority is tyranny none the less. A benevolent tyrant might even be better than the demotic majority. But, of course, our unlettered rabble have not ever read The Republic.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Gil223 View Post
    SNIP The part of the election process about which I have the most concern is the Electoral College having the power to overturn the popular vote.
    Of course the electoral college screws things up. Already having the ability to coerce every single person within their territorial limits, the power-hungry would stop trying for more control? They're power-hungry!! They're already willing to screw others by coercing them into doing things they have no right to demand. If they have no right to coerce others, but still do it, it is too obvious that they will ignore other rules of fair play to get what they want. Its too obvious.


    Or, alternatively, if you like supporting coersion, you have another false premise: the so-called popular vote. There is no such thing. Its an invention of the news media (or perhaps a losing political machine). The Electoral College cannot have the power to overturn the popular vote because there is no popular vote to overturn. The Electoral College is the vote. This ain't a democracy. Its a democratic republic. Or, were't you paying attention when you heaved that word republic around?
    Last edited by Citizen; 06-02-2013 at 02:24 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  12. #12
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Gil223 View Post
    ... If you voted then you assented to the process and validated it by your participation therein. If you did not vote, then you have been true to your personal philosophy. ...
    This is entirely untrue. I stand firmly against any idea that I am born with any obligation to the forces that have managed to take control over the geographical area surrounding my birthplace. I have chosen not to vote, and I have chosen to vote. I have NEVER assented to the process! Voting might give that impression, but disseminated impressions aren't always correct.

    Participation does not validate processes. I'm not sure this one even really needs an explenation. Just try to apply that logic to anything other than voting.
    Last edited by stealthyeliminator; 06-02-2013 at 02:26 PM.

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    This is entirely untrue. I stand firmly against any idea that I am born with any obligation to the forces that have managed to take control over the geographical area surrounding my birthplace. I have chosen not to vote, and I have chosen to vote. I have NEVER assented to the process! Voting might give that impression, but disseminated impressions aren't always correct.

    Participation does not validate processes. I'm not sure this one even really needs an explenation. Just try to apply that logic to anything other than voting.
    +1 In No Treason, Lysander Spooner addresses this exact point. One of the examples he gives is people voting in order to avoid being robbed, lead into war, etc. by the other candidate. Essentially, this class of voter is using the vote in self-defense.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    Quote Originally Posted by JTHunter View Post
    Fixed that for ya!
    Thanks, but what's the difference demon from common progressive, democrap or repugnant or liebraltarian.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    A rant? Oh, ok. Lemme see. Within the last decade, millions of my countrymen were thrown out of work, forced to endure economic duress that was entirely avoidable, had their savings diminished by deliberately created price inflation, etc, etc, etc. And, when I lay out one of the fundamental false premises making all that possible, you call it a rant? Really? A rant? I suppose we should call the second paragraph of the Declaration of Indepence a rant? You know the one. "We hold these truths to be self-evident...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,...consent of the governed"? I guess that's all John Locke's Second Treatise on Government was--a rant. Nothing of value there. Just the rantings of men who didn't have enough sense not to wear wigs and sheer hose.

    Whereas your false-premise* commentary about elections and everybody being responsible was not a rant?

    Oh, yes. I understand now.

    /sarcasm


    Also, don't try to slip in a strawman argument--first sentences in the quote above. I expressly objected to you including me in your "we". Not being coerced into participating in "the republic".


    *I say false-premise commentary because you are still operating under the false-premise that voters magically aquire standing to rule others if they can achieve a majority. And, you actually supported your arguments in part by saying I am subject to the rule of others without my consent merely by being born here. You basically validated the baseless majority-rule premise, and moreover, validated me being forced to go along with arrangements made even before I was born. Thanks for validating my oppressors. You wrote that you had nothing to do with it. This was a nice piece of diversion. You didn't have anything to do with it, but you can at least stop validating it.

    For all your agreement and validation of a psuedo-right to rule others without their consent, maybe I should start actively suspecting what you intend to do to others (including myself) with your majority power should you succeed in getting it.
    After all is said and done, and your expenditure of another 339 words, there is nothing false about "my premise". Nowhere did I say that I supported any of it, I simply told it as the way I perceive things to be. My distrust of the EC doesn't seem unreasonable, as I see them as just another gear in the control machine. The tenor of your response seems borderline hysterical, replete with accusations and warnings about not doing things I never considered doing... but, that's just my perception. Apparently, we shall have to agree to disagree on what composes the Republic, and what differentiates the Republic from the government.
    I simply made a few statement which express my opinion. I did not, nor do I now, feel the need to include the words of anyone other than myself as support for my opinion. I did not seek to convince anyone that my perception of the world in which we must live... or not live (again, that's an individual choice)... must be endured by anyone other than myself. Pax...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  16. #16
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Of course the electoral college screws things up. Already having the ability to coerce every single person within their territorial limits, the power-hungry would stop trying for more control? They're power-hungry!! They're already willing to screw others by coercing them into doing things they have no right to demand. If they have no right to coerce others, but still do it, it is too obvious that they will ignore other rules of fair play to get what they want. Its too obvious.


    Or, alternatively, if you like supporting coersion, you have another false premise: the so-called popular vote. There is no such thing. Its an invention of the news media (or perhaps a losing political machine). The Electoral College cannot have the power to overturn the popular vote because there is no popular vote to overturn. The Electoral College is the vote. This ain't a democracy. Its a democratic republic. Or, were't you paying attention when you heaved that word republic around?
    Surprisingly, I agree with this post. However, I do not share your defeatist "damned-if-we-do/don't" outlook. I always pay attention to that which I "heave", but I leave heaving the excrement of the male bovine to others. Pax...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  17. #17
    Regular Member ()pen(arry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by Gil223 View Post
    The part of the election process about which I have the most concern is the Electoral College having the power to overturn the popular vote.
    Hold up. The Electoral College isn't such a terrible institution or electoral mechanic. We need to distinguish between the statutory Electoral College and the farce that the states have turned it into. The framers didn't want the general populace voting for President directly, because they knew that the general populace wouldn't have enough time, inclination, or opportunity sufficiently to know the candidates to be able to make wise, informed decisions. No one here, I think, is going to suggest that they were wrong or that anything has changed since, internet or not. The intent behind the Electoral College was that the general populace would vote for specific people, ideally people they knew personally, who were sufficiently well-traveled and -acquainted with members of government that they would know the candidates personally, and be able to make wise, informed decisions on behalf of those who had voted them into the college. The Electoral College, whatever you might say about its implementation, was and is a damn good idea*. If you're going to take exception, take exception to the Constitution's naive assumptions about state behavior and the states' universal glee in gutting the Electoral College's intent by making electors party-appointed.

    EDIT: *Within the context of a Republic.
    Last edited by ()pen(arry; 06-03-2013 at 10:36 AM.

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by ()pen(arry View Post
    SNIP If you're going to take exception, take exception to the Constitution's naive assumptions about state behavior and the states' universal glee in gutting the Electoral College's intent by making electors party-appointed.
    Oh, I don't know that there was any naivete.

    All of the delegates to the constitutional convention came from the states. A few held no elected office in the states, but most did at some point. I'm pretty sure they were all quite familiar with the behavior of men in power.

    Regarding the electoral college, it was intended to prevent certain states from becoming too powerful at the new national level. Lotsa wrangling over that during the convention. Or, perhaps better said, the extensive wrangling was over how to apportion representation in congress. The solution to that wrangling was a senate (two votes each state), and a house (votes according to population). The convention borrowed heavily from that template to solve presidential elections.

    In one sense, the constitution can be viewed as the result of powerful men at the state level wanting to maintain their power at the state level. The constitution is lauded as a means to restrict federal power as the result of benevolent Framers trying to do the right thing. I think its much more likely the constitution was the result of powerful men vigorously working to keep as much power as possible for themselves at the state level.

    Did anybody ever notice there is very little said by the Framers about abuses of power by the state governments? On the one hand, one can write it off as being off-topic for the Framers, the topic being federal power. But, I think there was something else going on, too. I think abusive federal power was quite real to them, a very familiar situation, because a lot of them were involved in it at the state level. Yes, they had experience with Parliament. But, the state governments were where they lived and worked.

    And, those anti-federalists--the large number of people opposed to the constitution. I'm betting they had as much or more experience with their own colonial legislatures than Parliament.
    Last edited by Citizen; 06-03-2013 at 11:15 AM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Gil223 View Post
    After all is said and done, and your expenditure of another 339 words, there is nothing false about "my premise". Nowhere did I say that I supported any of it, I simply told it as the way I perceive things to be. My distrust of the EC doesn't seem unreasonable, as I see them as just another gear in the control machine. The tenor of your response seems borderline hysterical, replete with accusations and warnings about not doing things I never considered doing... but, that's just my perception. Apparently, we shall have to agree to disagree on what composes the Republic, and what differentiates the Republic from the government.
    I simply made a few statement which express my opinion. I did not, nor do I now, feel the need to include the words of anyone other than myself as support for my opinion. I did not seek to convince anyone that my perception of the world in which we must live... or not live (again, that's an individual choice)... must be endured by anyone other than myself. Pax...
    Oh? I guess I was just imagining that you wrote that if I voted then I validated the process. By extension--a very short extension--others who vote also validated the process, including yourself. And, your calls for handling the problems of the Electoral College messing up the popular vote. Nope. So support there, huh? Especially no support for a popular vote--the very epitome, by the way, of a majority magically aquiring the right to rule others that none had singly.
    Last edited by Citizen; 06-03-2013 at 11:09 AM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by ()pen(arry View Post
    Hold up. The Electoral College isn't such a terrible institution or electoral mechanic. We need to distinguish between the statutory Electoral College and the farce that the states have turned it into. The framers didn't want the general populace voting for President directly, because they knew that the general populace wouldn't have enough time, inclination, or opportunity sufficiently to know the candidates to be able to make wise, informed decisions. No one here, I think, is going to suggest that they were wrong or that anything has changed since, internet or not. The intent behind the Electoral College was that the general populace would vote for specific people, ideally people they knew personally, who were sufficiently well-traveled and -acquainted with members of government that they would know the candidates personally, and be able to make wise, informed decisions on behalf of those who had voted them into the college. The Electoral College, whatever you might say about its implementation, was and is a damn good idea*. If you're going to take exception, take exception to the Constitution's naive assumptions about state behavior and the states' universal glee in gutting the Electoral College's intent by making electors party-appointed.

    EDIT: *Within the context of a Republic.
    The electoral college exists because there are no national elections in our Republic. There never have been. All elections are State and local. I hope it stays that way. We are not a democracy and never have been.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Oh? I guess I was just imagining that you wrote that if I voted then I validated the process.
    No, you weren't imagining it. You were imagining that it was something other than my personal opinion. I am allowed as many of those as are you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    By extension--a very short extension--others who vote also validated the process, including yourself.
    That is correct, and - not that it's any of your business - I did not deny having taken part in the process.
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    And, your calls for handling the problems of the Electoral College messing up the popular vote.Nope.
    I made no suggestion about "handling the problems of the Electoral College messing up the popular vote". Once again, I simply stated my opinion that I perceive it as a personal concern.
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    So support there, huh? Especially no support for a popular vote--the very epitome, by the way, of a majority magically aquiring the right to rule others that none had singly.
    I do not support the formation of any group that can invalidate the popular vote. But, I was not consulted either prior to, or subsequent to, the establishment of the EC. At the time the EC was established, as I'm sure you know, there was no electronic media - not even the telegraph. The majority of the people were relatively uneducated, even the population "centers" were relatively few and relatively underpopulated compared to today (NYC - 60,515; Philadelphia - 41,220; Baltimore, Boston, and on down to Norfolk, Va with 6,926. These were the 10 largest; USA 5,308,483. Source: US Census 1800) - and news traveled slowly... as did the candidates. Roughly 80% of the population lived outside the "big cities". But, I'm certain you know all that... I just quoted those few stats in case there was somebody here who is not as knowledgeable as you.

    You do have a very active imagination - you imagine me saying things I did not say, and imagine that by attempting to twist those things I did say, I should look like a bad guy. If you simply choose to disagree with every opinion I elect to share, just put on your big boy pants and own up to it. We don't have to agree on anything, but neither one of us should try to make the other look foolish. Pax...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,509
    The electoral college as designed is exactly what we should follow. Unfortunately, it died with the passage of the 17th Amendment and the replacement of the republic with a "democracy".

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •