So, RK, I just wanted you to know that, after much back and forth with each other, I concede you were right about something. I used to think the popular vote was the fairest way to run an election...one vote for every person. On the surface, that seems fair, right? Well, after realizing that two states, California and New York, who have more U.S. citizens than the rest of the country combined, could decide the election every 4 years, I finally saw that the popular vote is not a good idea. Add to that the fact New York and California are overwhelmingly liberal and I can see the wisdom in using the electoral college system.
Congrats! You have arrived at the conclusion the founding fathers arrived at, after using the popular vote, and it causing spectacular problems. You have joined the ranks of the intelligentsia
Here's how I understand it: Our system of democracy does use the popular vote ... albeit by STATE, rather than nationally. If your party's presidential candidate wins a state's popular vote, then all of that state's electors of your party qualify to cast their vote on the December 19th Presidential Election Day. The Electoral College actually very much honors the popular vote while also honoring states' rights. It's a great balance between the two, honestly. They haven't found a better system yet, even though it's been tweaked here and there. I personally think it's about as good as you're going to get it, trying to strike a balance between big cities, smaller and less-populated rural, semi-rural and suburbian areas, and more and less densely populated states. Our type of democracy is a Constitutional Republic. It's a very democratic and very well-balanced system that is really well thought out and implemented. So to say that the EC is undemocratic or has anything to do with slavery is honestly a bunch of malarkey. It seems to me as though those are arguments being made by those who either a) don't fully understand our system or b) do understand it and choose to go for emotional manipulation instead (either way, that's pretty bad). I also wish the media would just quit reporting the national popular vote, since it has nothing at all to do with our system of democracy and only confuses people. Granted, if we did go by national popular vote, then presidential candidates would be forced to focus their campaigns on the big cities, so their strategic approach would be much different. There's no guarantee that these cities would remain dominated by Democrat leanings for very long. As it is currently, the campaign approach is based upon our current election system. If the system ever changes, then evidently so would the campaign strategies.
You know I live to read those words, right? 8) Now if I could get you to agree than only property owners should have the right to vote... And that senators should be appointed by the states instead of popular vote.
I was quite surprised when I saw that NYC alone has a population larger than Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming all put together. An election based purely on the popular vote might overcome the issue whereby Republicans in California and Democrats in Texas might as well stay home on election day but it does seem silly that a single city carries more weight than eight entire states (even if RI looks like a teeny tiny bit that chipped off the end of CT). I still say the answer is smaller government across the board. There's not much in common between the lifestyles of a hedge fund manager in Manhatten and a furrier in Alaska so any system that allows one to dictate the terms by which the other has to live their life is one step away (maybe not even that) from tyranny.
I think it was Alexander Hamilton who said one of the key elements of the original design was the prevention of undo influence from foreign nations. Wondering if modern circumstances shouldn't call for a revue.
Term limits. Definitely term limits. No reelections after 2 terms, just like the presidency. Limited terms for Supreme Court justices. No more lifetime appointments. Nobody in Congress gets to vote for benefits for themselves. Nobody. I'm not 100% with you on votes being tied to property ownership, especially when the housing market goes wonky or in times of recession when home ownership becomes prohibitive because people can barely keep a roof over their heads to begin with. How many land owners have been uprooted by government agencies to build roads and parks or whatever, or by coporate interests? Plus, the housing market can be manipulated by speculative folks who I'm certain wouldn't hesitate to leverage the power of the banks and the IRS to bully people around in order to influence voting proceedings. In other words, I can eventually see the pool of voters become dominated by corporate and governmental power players. Because human nature. I like the idea but can see it playing out totally different in reality.
In many ways we already have term limits, only we call them "elections". If people wanted to remove the incumbent politician from power they could vote for the other guy. The trouble with that is that few people who vote one way would support the other side just to remove the incumbent from office. The way the property market is so inextricably tied to interest rates I'd be hesitant to tie voting rights to property ownership unless the property market could first be realigned to reduce the influence of the banking sphere (specifically central banks, although to a lesser extent commercial banks and other mortgage lenders) and the concept of eminent domain totally overhauled. Otherwise, as you say, a handy bit of eminent domain and those pesky voters go and vote somewhere else. I'd also like to do away with any form of compulsory acquisition by the state. If you want to build a bypass through my back yard the budget for the bypass is likely to be high enough to include enough of a premium over and above the fair market value of my house that I'll be very happy to take your money and move on. Make the premium free of all taxes for good measure.
If you're referring to the whole "CIA says Russia hacked the election in favor of Trump" nonsense, I say spare us. Right after Jill Whine, er, Stein, asked for a recount, President Obama himself said there was no evidence of Russians hacking and changing the election for Trump. No statements by the CIA during the recount that the election was hacked by Russia. The recount went on for several days. Nothing from the CIA. Then, after Wisconsin finished the recount, with no evidence of tampering, Michigan starts a recount but is forced to stop, and Pennsylvania is denied the start of a recount, then the CIA says, "Uh, Russia interfered?" I call B.S. What is this supposed "evidence?" The CIA needs to release it. Well, if it even exists. They don't have to go into great detail about things to the point they give away national security secrets, but they can generally discuss what they found and how they found it. I say they won't, though. We'll just be expected to take their word. Sorry, but I won't. Honestly, I think the CIA is merely jumping on the "dump Trump" bandwagon and they, for whatever reason, don't like him and are just shooting off their mouths to make him look bad and to give the electors a "constitutionally valid" reason not to elect him as President. The thing is, the more I see people whine and cry about Trump, often using outright lies like "he hates Mexican immigrants and he's sending them back," the more I actually like him. He obviously is getting to people, most of whom deserve it, so it just makes me think that, though he won't be flawless, he'll be a better President than most people want to give him credit for...
Ah. Must be the "he has business dealings with various nations, including Russia" scenario. Yeah, he and his lawyers probably should figure out how to deal with that.
Hmm. Somewhat open minded about the Senator thing. Not so much about "only property owners being allowed to vote" thing. There are a myriad of reasons why people don't own property that does nothing to change the fact they are still American citizens and should have a say in how they are governed. I mean, if citizenship really means little, if anything, to you, maybe only people who can vote should be the ones required to obey the laws of the country, pay taxes, etc? It was interesting to hear a history lesson from you awhile ago that owning property was a requirement back in the day, but, honestly, I'm glad that was done away with...
If property owners are allowed to vote, how much property would a person need to own in order to secure a vote? Would it work for someone to buy a couple of acres, parcel it up into tiny little patches (maybe 5-foot squares) and sell them to people who wanted to vote but didn't want to commit to a house? So you own a notional 5-foot square of barren and mostly worthless land somewhere in the back end of nowhere, pay virtually nothing in property taxes (because the land isn't worth anything and can't be used for anything useful) but get a vote? Combine that with eminent domain and you've got a perfect means to rig elections. Get rid of that pesky Republican voter who owns loads of land by compulsory acquisition, parcel up his land to dutiful Democrat voters who will pay $10 each for the right to vote (maybe even hand out tiny parcels of land to the party faithful), and you've got yourself a candidate in office.
Not quite the same, but gerrymandering electoral districts is a tried and true method to accomplish the same goal.
Oh yes, but think how much easier it would be to simply force a single voter off their land and replace them with a dozen or more friendly voters. For good measure you could then split their land across multiple electoral districts and dump friendly voters into multiple areas. Speaking of which, if the vote is tied to land ownership does the person with 5000 acres get more votes to cast than the person who bought a 10-foot square of his Amish friend's field so the Amish guy could have a phone in his name but that wasn't on his land?
I think having voting privileges tied to land ownership was a good idea back in the day when land ownership was neither tied to banks nor revokeable via frivolous government actions. I don't think it would fly nowadays, honestly, with power-brokering financier and political overlords manipulating literally everything to further their own interests.