Why should southern and rural areas with a small population be given power in the Electoral college over the majoritg vote?

[Anonymous]

Also why do conservatives fear the popular vote of the common people and call it mob rule but they don't mind having unelected power over the masses.

[monorprise]

The electoral cottage like the Senate more represent the political equation of whether or no we need to cooperate with you at all rather than go our own way.

Like it or not this equation very much tied to land and resources. For it takes land and resources to operate independently not requiring any cooperation with others.


Hence why the Senate is really the core of the united States goverment, it existed in that form before the constitution of 1787 and remains the only part of the goverment that can't be amended away under that Constitution.

The Senate Represents the States and their inherit ability to govern themselfs independent of the rest of the union. As such the Senate also represents the only real interest in the union those states have.

The house by contrast is a concession to the new direct taxing power recognizing that taxes come from the people. The house and the president do not represent the binding interest in the union.

So the answer to your question is, because the southern and rural areas don't need to cooperate with you.

[BoopBoopBeep]

Why we have a bicameral legislature is literally gov't 101. Sue your public education system.

One chamber represents the people (House), one chamber represents the states (Senate) who do not all have the same interests. We place a high value on State's rights, otherwise the nation would collapse.

[monorprise]

We really need to explain to people today what the Senate is and why it exist. People today seem to think theses united States are a union of 330+ million people who allegedly want to follow one set of rulers.

When in fact practically we are a union of 50 states spread across an entire continent who dont nessarly need to agree on almost anything, and want to agree on even less.

Senate is really the core of the united States goverment, it existed in that form before the constitution of 1787 and remains the only part of the goverment that can't be amended away under that Constitution.

[BoopBoopBeep]

@monorprise Concur completely, and that's why we need to shut down Dept of Ed.

[monorprise]

@BoopBoopBeep I agree of course, although as someone who once worked for the goverment. I would humbly suggest we will find it a lot easier to shut it down if we first neutralize its affect via resistance.

Remember what a politician is, they are power hungry people who want to set policy.

They will as such cling to every lever of power they have until it becomes more costly than it is worth.
To abolish DOE we must make it more costly than it is useful to them.

[Anonymous]

If Trump won because of the popular vote, the libs would be crying about it, and demanding the electoral collage.

[monorprise]

While that is certantly true both sides tend to switch to whatever is most advantageous. There is actually a much more fundamental problem with having a consolidated system of power in a continental scale country like the USA.

There is a reason you don't see large countries that don't split up or become oppressive empires in history.

As a political system of power scales it becomes more and more ignorant of its ever more diverse components and ever less able to function equably. Due to the limitations of human understanding and foresighted, and the irresistible lure of ever greater power by each generation of political leaders.

The result is there are only 2 options as leaders invariably demand uniform policies that harm different regions due to different conditions and cultures.
1: the regions split off.
2: if there exist a super majority the country transforms its goverment into an oppressive empire able to suppress such minorities.

The problem with Option 2 is the same power to control distant minorities tends to work as well at securing the power of the factions in power. So you end up as an oppressive empire like Russia or China.

[LiamJHayden]

Because without that compromise there would have been no Constitution.

A better question is, "Why has the federal government been permitted to usurp so much power when the powers of the federal government are "few and enumerated?"

[LiamJHayden]

Or to quote Madison "few and defined."

[monorprise]

@LiamJHayden Because we let them raise and maintain an occupying army with which federal politicians have indulge their insatiable power lust , the same ambition which drove them to run for office in the first place.

This is why you really can't maintain a federal Constitutional republic and a standing centralized army of enforcement at the same time. Politician's can never be trusted to respect the limits of their own power and not abuse such a force.

Still the answer to this question is because these united States are not a single people who want to be governed as such. A fact made obvious by our bitter hate and resentment for each-other's incompatible policy preferences.

As such the Senate representing the States more represent the political equation of whether or no we need to cooperate at all rather than go our own way among people more agreeable.

This is why Senate really the core of the united States goverment, it existed in that form before the constitution of 1787 and remains the only part of the goverment that can't be amended away under that Constitution.

[TadCurious]

You would have to amend the Constitution to ameliorate your complaints. Good luck with that. The Framers created the Electoral College for very good reasons.

[monorprise]

@TadCurious
Its true the framers did create the electoral cottage for a good reason, but his real problem is the Senate.

He finds that a problem because he thinks of these united States as a consolidated lot of 330+ million people to be ruled as a single unit. This is very clearly not the case given how much we hate each other and our incompatible policy preferences.
It never was the case which is why we don't have a unitary goverment, and will only continue to become less so over time as our different geographic and cultural needs/desires continue remain separate and diverge.

Legally and institutionally the Senate really the core of the united States goverment, it existed in that form before the Constitution of 1787 and remains the only part of the goverment that can't be amended away under that Constitution.

Indeed politically even if we were to try it would only lead to the dissolution of the union, as the popular majority being soo out of touch with the reality in most of the country would force those alienate regions to withdraw or become economic colonies.

Upstate New York, or Down State Illinois is a great example of this, vast regions of relatively large states in perpetual economic turmoil and economic dependency because of the ruling cities populated by people entirely ignorant of their economic reality imposed policies that impoverished them.(prior to the Reynolds v. Sims, (1964) states had Senates too prevent this same kind of abuse)

At a continental level the disparity would be even more stark and lead to revolution after revolution. They would have to transform their goverment into an oppressive and autocratic empire like China or Russia to retain control.

[TadCurious]

@monorprise
You make some very interesting and valid points. I went and looked up Reynolds vs. Sims. The Supreme Court majority opinion obviously exempted the federal Senate from its proportionality requirements because the Constitution wouldn't allow otherwise. But they saw no conflict or double standard in requiring state Senates to be subject to the same proportionality requirements as the lower houses of bicameral state legislatures.
I agree that having an "every state gets 2 senators" (and an analogous system at the state level) is needed in order to protect the interests of rural, less populated areas. Which of course is what motivated the Framers (at least in part) to create the "every state gets 2" scheme for the federal Senate..

[monorprise]

@TadCurious The framers understood human nature and the reality of politics far better than most people since in general. People think they were ignorant because they lived in the late 19th century, but theses people were very well read.

Today people spoiled by the fruits of liberty spend little time learning about its nature. They don't have to as such the people who mostly talk about this are the people who want use it to push their particular agenda. Hence why Politicians particularity on the left for decades have been trying to redefine the concept of "Freedom" and "rights" to be the opposite Securty and services.

They want to sell their agenda to get what they want, and we have not yet reach the point where we recognize the despotism the cumulative weight of all of this has put us under. Unfortunately it is likely that we will collapse as a civilization before that happens based upon the great arch of history.

It is indeed that arch of history from Liberty => security => complacency => despotism => liberty again, that is really what they are referring to when they say revolution.

The founders were the people who recognize this pattern. Obviously we desiring freedom to make meaning in our lives want to short circuit this arch as much as possible to skip back to liberty again.