In my opinion, the Electoral college was one of the "original sins" of the nations founding. They should not have compromised "one person, one vote".
Overmod I have tried answering this multiple times, but the content kept disappearing and then the Kalmbach-served ransomware bricked the phone. The value of the Senate is as a forum where the 'several States' are treated as equal in Federal matters, those that equally affect states regardless of their size, or wealth, or other factors. I have never particularly questioned the fair value of this. Meanwhile, since the change to allow popular election of Senators, the only function served by amending, say, the number of Senators to be proportional to population would be to make the Senate a somewhat more defective (in part because inherently worse quantized) version of the House. There is really little point in preserving all the costs of a bicameral legislature if both halves have the same characteristics. This is very separate from issues surrounding other 'reform' -- notably the retention of the Electoral College, where a far better case for change could be made. I would agree that expedient quantization might no longer be needed to expedite determining the vote, and that challenges to any count 'close enough' to matter will take place regardless of quantized number of "electors". But more significantly there is no state-representation issue present in the nominal function of the Electoral College, and therefore no distinct issue of fairness in preserving it per se.
I have tried answering this multiple times, but the content kept disappearing and then the Kalmbach-served ransomware bricked the phone.
The value of the Senate is as a forum where the 'several States' are treated as equal in Federal matters, those that equally affect states regardless of their size, or wealth, or other factors. I have never particularly questioned the fair value of this.
Meanwhile, since the change to allow popular election of Senators, the only function served by amending, say, the number of Senators to be proportional to population would be to make the Senate a somewhat more defective (in part because inherently worse quantized) version of the House. There is really little point in preserving all the costs of a bicameral legislature if both halves have the same characteristics.
This is very separate from issues surrounding other 'reform' -- notably the retention of the Electoral College, where a far better case for change could be made. I would agree that expedient quantization might no longer be needed to expedite determining the vote, and that challenges to any count 'close enough' to matter will take place regardless of quantized number of "electors". But more significantly there is no state-representation issue present in the nominal function of the Electoral College, and therefore no distinct issue of fairness in preserving it per se.
Opinion presented as fact, by fiat.
Your choice. Given we are talking about American history, the foundational period, the preference would be a grounding in the period, in other words, the historical contexts, not some poli sci person's theory. But if that fits with your p.o.v. better, your choice.
charlie hebdoThe preferred sources would be academic historians, not some supposed expert on politics.
Not to say historians have little value, just that their specialty is different from discussing the theory and structure of political organizations... as here.
And he says, "What ain't so, just ain't so." The epitome of smugness, by Mr. (Thinks He) Knows About Everything. The preferred sources would be academic historians, not some supposed expert on politics.
The remarks on the thread I referred to http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/88/p/284382/3277477.aspx#3277477 (and just before) had it pegged but then again, the variant on the old Marshall Field slogan applies: "The customer is always right if (s)he thinks (s)he is right."
charlie hebdoOM: Your tone reflects a know-it-all self-belief system.
There was an encounter of yours on another forum where a member stated it more explicitly.
I might add that when I'm mistaken, I say so, and a couple of those cases might much better illustrate your point, I think.
Convicted OneWas I too subtle?
It doesn't matter; Paul and the others are right. This isn't a political forum, and this shouldn't have been a political thread aside from the issues directly associated with the issues of direct rail to Alaska (and beyond!)
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt.
-Julius Caesar.
Translates to, "The people gladly believe what they wish to."
Here we go again. A couple of weeks or so ago I changed my signature back to one I use for the political season. It applies to all sides. It's Ben Franklin's, so I don't want to change it, but I would want to change the "do" at the end to "believe."
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
OvermodThe idea is when to pack it more than how much to pack it. See FDR's expedience for one example. "Judicial tyranny" is fine to some groups when it's their tyranny, but if it looks like the other guys are causing your fancy anticipated plans some woe, time to add some of your own to 'restore the balance'.
Was I too subtle?
Seems like I recall an article in Trains magazine, 8-11 years ago, that explored the utility of a rail line linking Alaska with the lower 48. It was only like a half page piece. But it's general flavor was that such a line would be hard to justify economically. And I believe it led into some debate here on the forum.
Perhaps as things continue to thaw out, the need for a dedicated rail link will become more pressing?
OM: Your tone reflects a know-it-all self-belief system. There was an encounter of yours on another forum where a member stated it more explicitly.
alphasBased on Biden refusing to answer the question as to whether he will go along with enlarging the Supreme Court I doubt that's going to be the case. My opinion is that was the most significant political news that emerged from the debate.
The larger court works out well in Germany where it is not as political. So I would be on board with it increasing to 13 from nine. They are proposing an increase to 16 though. And so they took a proposal that otherwise would have been more serious and converted it into a cartoon caricature that most can see what the underlying intention is.
rdamon Prior to the 17th amendment Senators were appointed. Good way for term limits.
Prior to the 17th amendment Senators were appointed. Good way for term limits.
charlie hebdoYou ignore the facts as to why the Senate was set up that the US was mostly rural in 1789 and that there were no parties (factions) then.
At least revisionist history is a source of perpetual amusement. Until it starts to be accepted as fact merely because it is strongly enough or frequently enough or recently enough asserted. There are things worse than a 'tyranny of the majority' -- one of which is Government policy based on 'democratic' perceptions manipulated by techniques of the advertising industry, or tolerated lobbying or influence efforts.
It's been particularly amusing to see mass 'influencers' -- Facebook's CIO being the most recent I've heard -- that have no problem restricting freedom of expression on their platforms when it suits their purpose, but retaining freedom of speech grounds for tolerating superPACs and the like. I guess we all deserve the manipulated democracy we tolerate.
Now we ought to get back to the legitimate issue here, which is not that "Trump approved something" but that planning for the A2A project has lessformsl impediment.
In my opinion this is even less than state governments issuing charters 'back in the day' for common-carrier railroads when they were seen as the only practical alternative for internal transportation. The problem is that in between the alternatives we have today, a railroad providing only an 'inside gateway' for what coastal shipping or ferries, or an improved 'Alaska Highway',could do is orders of magnitude short of being able to pay for itself, let alone maintained in what in places will likely be severe conditions. There are certainly sources of money and credit that could build it ... but if there is one such that considers the line primarily as other than an expedited 'trade bridge' to Asia and to Europe-from-the-east, I'd be interested to see their capitalization plans...
Overmod Convicted One I can see no useful benefit to expanding the court, other than to mollify sore losers. The idea is when to pack it more than how much to pack it. See FDR's expedience for one example. "Judicial tyranny" is fine to some groups when it's their tyranny, but if it looks like the other guys are causing your fancy anticipated plans some woe, time to add some of your own to 'restore the balance'. What's the old saying? ... 'works if you work it'. Of course, if we throw out a bicameral legislature, why not get rid of some of that pesky and time-wasting checks and balances stuff too. Why have committees when you can just do majority voting? Why even bother with expensive and outdated representative democracy when it is so easy just to mail out ballots and tot up the results? One of the inherent points in the Rural Broadband Initiative was to bring pervasive computing to the poor and distant at reasonable cost; once you achieve that, true participatory democracy becomes practicable! (And to be honest, most of the concerns with the 'Deep State' and perceived issues with a republic form of government could be addressed thereby...) Apart from all the problems of modern democracy, of course. But some people don't care as much about those, until they don't get the results from democracy they wanted.
Convicted One I can see no useful benefit to expanding the court, other than to mollify sore losers.
The idea is when to pack it more than how much to pack it. See FDR's expedience for one example. "Judicial tyranny" is fine to some groups when it's their tyranny, but if it looks like the other guys are causing your fancy anticipated plans some woe, time to add some of your own to 'restore the balance'.
What's the old saying? ... 'works if you work it'.
Of course, if we throw out a bicameral legislature, why not get rid of some of that pesky and time-wasting checks and balances stuff too. Why have committees when you can just do majority voting? Why even bother with expensive and outdated representative democracy when it is so easy just to mail out ballots and tot up the results? One of the inherent points in the Rural Broadband Initiative was to bring pervasive computing to the poor and distant at reasonable cost; once you achieve that, true participatory democracy becomes practicable! (And to be honest, most of the concerns with the 'Deep State' and perceived issues with a republic form of government could be addressed thereby...)
Apart from all the problems of modern democracy, of course. But some people don't care as much about those, until they don't get the results from democracy they wanted.
A reductio ad absurdem argument.
Most decent people prefer respecting the wisdom of most of the people to protecting the interests of a minority, whether slaveholders or the 1%. Checks and balances are not endangered.
Convicted OneI can see no useful benefit to expanding the court, other than to mollify sore losers.
alphas "AK has less than 750,000 people yet it gets two senators, same as CA or TX with many millions. Time to make our representation in the Senate based on population." Doing what you say or using the popular vote to elect a president guarantees a one political party US since the Democratic party receives 90% of the vote in major cities. Madison anticipated that which is why he pushed the electorial college as a compromise between those who wanted pure democracy and those who wanted each state to have an equal vote. One party countries have not had a good record at all of providing democracy for all of their citizens. In my days as a student we were taught that the reason the American revolution succeeded when so many others failed (the French revolution was used as a prime example) was due to its founders having the foresight to go with a Constitution Republic rather than a true democracy. As a result all US citizens have some basic protections even if they belong to a political minority. The good news is that to accomplish either of those actions needs a constitutional amendment which requires approval by two thirds of the states.
"AK has less than 750,000 people yet it gets two senators, same as CA or TX with many millions. Time to make our representation in the Senate based on population."
Let our government reflect the wishes of the majority of our people instead of the reverse. You ignore the facts as to why the Senate was set up that the US was mostly rural in1789 and that there were no parties (factions) then. Why should people in suburbia and cities count for less than people in Alaska, most of whom also live in cities? If the GOP had positions that reflected the views of folks in suburbia, they could win. They used to in almost all the Chicago suburbs for years, but not recently.
charlie hebdo And why is it that NKP gets jumped on for his anti-Trump remarks while you get to rant on Chicago and Biden? Political and social clear double standard.
And why is it that NKP gets jumped on for his anti-Trump remarks while you get to rant on Chicago and Biden? Political and social clear double standard.
Why is it that you said nothing about NKP's anti Trump rant, but say something about Gramp's Biden rant? Political double standard by yourself.
Could it be that nobody said anything to Gramp because they were worried they would be accused of having an "explosion" or "temper tantrum"? After all, that is what the person who "jumped" on NKP was accused of....
An "expensive model collector"
Hardly. The Senate was established primarily to protect the slave-holding states from losing that peculiar institution and secondarily to continue with the idea that the original 13 states were sovereign nations. Now we have the quasi-dictatorship of a petulant minority.
I can see no useful benefit to expanding the court, other than to mollify sore losers.
The court has been working fine up till now, why break what works?
I just hope we will have the Supreme Court settled by election day.
Based on Biden refusing to answer the question as to whether he will go along with enlarging the Supreme Court I doubt that's going to be the case. My opinion is that was the most significant political news that emerged from the debate.
charlie hebdo The Senate was established primarily to protect the slave-holding states from losing that peculiar institution and secondarily to continue with the idea that the original 13 states were sovereign nations.
The Senate was established primarily to protect the slave-holding states from losing that peculiar institution and secondarily to continue with the idea that the original 13 states were sovereign nations.
At the time the Constitution was written and ratified, the biggest area for creating new states was the territory covered by the Northwest Ordnance of 1787. This was passed by Congress under the Articles of Confederation. This law explicitly stated that slavery was prohibited in any states created from the Northwest Territory.
It is kind of funny to realize that one of the most impactful laws in the history of the US was enacted during the short life of the Articles of Confederation.
Keep in mind that it would take a constitutional amendment to alter the configuration of the Senate. The sun will rise in the west before that happens.
Overmod charlie hebdo Time to make our representation in the Senate based on population. It seems to have slipped your mind that the purpose of a Senate in our bicameral legislature is to provide equal representation for states, to balance the proportional representation (and potential dictatorship of a majority) represented by the House (which has membership elected proportional to population).
charlie hebdo Time to make our representation in the Senate based on population.
It seems to have slipped your mind that the purpose of a Senate in our bicameral legislature is to provide equal representation for states, to balance the proportional representation (and potential dictatorship of a majority) represented by the House (which has membership elected proportional to population).
OvermodIt seems to have slipped your mind that the purpose of a Senate in our bicameral legislature is to provide equal representation for states, to balance the proportional representation (and potential dictatorship of a majority) represented by the House (which has membership elected proportional to population).
Ha-ha, Chicago at the United States Federal level.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.