Comments on: The strong case for keeping Section 5 Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 By: tmc Tue, 19 Feb 2013 22:47:12 +0000 I don’t have a problem with anything President Obama has done or is doing so far. I voted for him twice too. But I don’t think he’s a savior either. He ran on a promise to “Change how business was done in Washington”, but offered none. He is a Politian and has proven to be a very good one.

I guess my point is trying to patch up voting laws for the masses is peeing in the wind. Currently the public vote doesn’t matter and I don’t think it should. They cannot make an informed decision about placing their vote, and it matters not who they vote for as both candidates are part of the current establishment. Democracy or “majority rule” in these circumstances will either continue to be a mockery as it is now, or will turn into mob rule. So why don’t we try to change the game instead of the rules? Make all peoples votes count instead of tinkering with who can cast an almost meaningless vote? We have had four presidents that did not win the popular vote, but they were always close and easily spun away with the help of our free press. I think the next time it won’t be so easy. We should avoid the whole issue and change our republic to allow the public to vote for the electors. Then, if you are a citizen living in a county, any county in any state, you would have a vote. You would be much more likely to be making an informed decision and your vote would matter.

By: JL4 Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:06:23 +0000 @tmc, maybe I don’t understand your post, but what’s your problem with President Obama raising money and challenging a party decision? How did President Obama’s win shake the political landscape, and why should it have been an impossibility?

FYI, I voted for our President. Isn’t anyone supposed to be able to run for President, (at least theoretically) “fool” or not? The people voted in the President, and he won the Electoral votes. This is a system we have used since the country formed. Why does it need to change?

I just don’t get your point.

By: tmc Tue, 19 Feb 2013 13:09:08 +0000 @JL4, I agree that the current system has been working very well throughout or short history. It was always a failsafe in case the public really blew it. Luckily that has not happened yet. The playing field changed though in last 8 years. When the President beat Hillary to the nomination, it shook the powers that be to there core. Hilary was pre-ordained by the democratic party to be the candidate and maybe even president. No one was supposed to be able to raise the money and influence to challenge a party decision. And when he won the election it shook the entire political landscape. This was not supposed to be a possibility, never mind a reality. The day he won, I told my wife and family that in the next two years campaigning will change in some fashion to ensure that it does not happen again. Enter the SCOTUS. The politicians do not want the public to understand the Electoral college as it is their safety net. With the advent of modern communications and social media, they will very likely need to use the electoral within the next few election cycles to keep some fool from being elected. Remember Boris Yeltsin?
I think if we instead embrace and improve the electoral system, we would have a far better chance of understanding what the people want and actually need.

By: JL4 Mon, 18 Feb 2013 23:19:15 +0000 The system works now, and is not antiquated, or in need of any re-vamping. Voter laws don’t have the benefit of their very own Article in the Constitution, but there is an undeniable precedent for popular vote since the third Presidential election in this country (I think it’s the third). Saying that eliminating the popular vote, or rewriting the Constitution, borders on insanity in my opinion – or at least demonstrates sour election grapes.

I think it’s a common cry to revise the system when there has been a particularly polarizing election, which I doubt anyone on either side can deny.

The framers of the Constitution well understood the “lesser angels” of the majority, and wrote the Constitution to protect ourselves from, well, ourselves. The majority is not necessarily wise, but the majority is almost always fickle, and always at odds with the minority. Our system works, even when counter-intuitively, it doesn’t feel like it.

But back to the topic. Section 5 is still a necessity, especially here in the South where prejudices against minorities still exist, whether Jim-Bob wants to admit it or not, but also in other regions where prejudice is not a thing of the past under any circumstances.

If the South can do away with Section 5, it flings the door wide for injustices to be committed to minorities under any radar at all. I, for one, do not want to go backward. Who knows? It may not be too long before whites are the minority, and those Section 5 laws will be needed to protect us. If that idea makes you queasy, then you need to support Section 5. Just a simple case of be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it.

By: tmc Mon, 18 Feb 2013 19:12:19 +0000 How about local county, not political district or party vote for the electors of the electoral? Would that not reduce power to “the powerful who hold no formal office”? And indeed to those that were in formal office?
Those duly elected electors (a short term “office”) would be supported by pooled state resources to investigate federal candidates and determine who offers the best value for the people.
It’s just a start. Much more of our government needs to be “upgraded”.

By: usagadfly Mon, 18 Feb 2013 16:51:49 +0000 @tmc:

Yes, I am angry about the unkept promises of the USA to its own people. Yes, I am angry that the majority is not allowed to rule itself And yes I want restraints on Government and on the powerful who hold no formal office.

By: tmc Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:44:29 +0000 @usagadfly, Indeed you angry about the failures of our current system. That is pretty obvious. I was attempting to not just complain about it, but to offer a suggestion on how we might make it better.
Your anger has you declaring the most famous country in history for freedom and democracy is a monarchy without a monarch. No point in engaging you in discussion. I apologize for distracting you from your ranting and will not do so again.

By: usagadfly Mon, 18 Feb 2013 04:37:58 +0000 @tmc:

Formalisms, such as the “electoral college”, that have no practical restraint on the exercise of power by the powerful, who by definition make up the Government, are simply lipstick on the pig of absolutism. Gerrymandered election districts which make 90% of the House of “Representatives” safe seats are another meaningless formalism. Our entire system, including our so-called “Justice” system, is pure formality without real meaning.

Try living in an absolute monarchy before lecturing on the difference between that system and our own. And yes, they still exist. The USSR had plenty of formal restraints on government as well. Both here and now, and there and then, restriction on the exercise of power is what counts, and accountability. Not the electoral college, which certainly does not embody “democracy”. And yes, I know how it works, in detail.

By: tmc Sun, 17 Feb 2013 17:40:25 +0000 @usagadfly, it seems you need to read up on the original, and current electoral college or “electors” and how they come to be and what is expected of them. We are not anything like a Monarchy and it is really difficult to draw any correlation between them without LSD. Also, safe seats are in congress, not the electoral. And that level of knowledge is why the concept was created.

By: usagadfly Sun, 17 Feb 2013 17:22:57 +0000 The US electoral system limits Government just like an absolute monarchy does. They can do what they want and do not have to do anything they do not. There is no observable difference between the two systems. Why even bother holding elections here as presently constituted? “Safe” seats reflect politically powerful, small minorities, not the People.