RE: Almost, but not quite
Steve responds: "It doesn't matter how electors are selected. They could be popularly elected, appointed by the legislature, or picked by lottery, the point is, there must be no requirement or restriction on how they vote."
In some states there isn't a requirement or restriction on how they vote. For example in 2000, Gore's people tried to get some electors from states Bush won to vote for Gore instead. I think you're saying that you're okay with how the electors are chosen now, but you want all 50 states & DC to have no requirements or restrictions on how they vote.
"Then you favor democracy in picking the executive and the end result will always be the same one we know now."
Not necessarily... Doing it that way would make nearly all the states worthy of a candidate's time & attention. For example, a Republican candidate could pick up some electoral votes in liberal states like California and New York, whereas a Democrat candidate could pick up some electoral votes in states like North Carolina and Virginia. I favor that approach over the winner-takes-all system that the majority of states have now.
"Repealing the Seventeenth Amendment would necessarily make the selection of state legislators more serious, especially in states where Presidential Electors were selected by the state's assembly."
With all things being somewhat equal, that is true, but the districts now are drawn in such a way that there's hardly any truly competitive races anymore. Today, the legislators are choosing their voters instead of voters choosing their legislators.
"That is absolutely true, but limiting the terms of elected officials is only treating the symptom, not the problem. The solution to the problem is republic, not hobbled democracy."
Can't we treat the symptom and attempt to fix the problem at the same time??? I believe we can institute term limits while we move our country to a constitutional republic that the Founders envisioned.
In some states there isn't a requirement or restriction on how they vote. For example in 2000, Gore's people tried to get some electors from states Bush won to vote for Gore instead. I think you're saying that you're okay with how the electors are chosen now, but you want all 50 states & DC to have no requirements or restrictions on how they vote.
"Then you favor democracy in picking the executive and the end result will always be the same one we know now."
Not necessarily... Doing it that way would make nearly all the states worthy of a candidate's time & attention. For example, a Republican candidate could pick up some electoral votes in liberal states like California and New York, whereas a Democrat candidate could pick up some electoral votes in states like North Carolina and Virginia. I favor that approach over the winner-takes-all system that the majority of states have now.
"Repealing the Seventeenth Amendment would necessarily make the selection of state legislators more serious, especially in states where Presidential Electors were selected by the state's assembly."
With all things being somewhat equal, that is true, but the districts now are drawn in such a way that there's hardly any truly competitive races anymore. Today, the legislators are choosing their voters instead of voters choosing their legislators.
"That is absolutely true, but limiting the terms of elected officials is only treating the symptom, not the problem. The solution to the problem is republic, not hobbled democracy."
Can't we treat the symptom and attempt to fix the problem at the same time??? I believe we can institute term limits while we move our country to a constitutional republic that the Founders envisioned.
posted by Andy W. Rogers | 1:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home